BS6'00 
.A5/ 


Bible 

or -Wo  Bible? 


^ticc  25  Cents 


■miiiiS't; 


3-lZ- 41 

fcibrar;^  of  €he  trheolojicd  ^emmarjp 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


PRESENTED  BY 


The  Estate  of 
Philip  H.  Waddell  Smith 

Am354 


«ible  or  -fflo  «fblc7 


IReport  of  the  jflrst  Convention  of 

XLbc  Bmerican  :fiSf  ble  Xea^ue 

irn  1Rew  Vork  City,  ITHav  3,  4,  and  5, 1904 


IRcprinted  from  "dbe  IBible  Student  and  Q^cacber*' 


|>rice  25  Cents 


c:bc  Bmerican  Bible  Xeague 

37*39  ISible  IHouse 


Copyright,  1904 
by 
Cbe  Bmcrlcan  IBIblc  Xcaquc 


tReport   of  the 

Convention  in  1Rew  Vork. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


The  Marble  Collegiate  Church,  New 
York  City,  hospitably  opened  its  doors 
for  the  first  Convention  of  The  Amer- 
ican Bible  League,  May  3,  4  and  5,  1904. 
The  sessions  began  on  Tuesday  evening, 
May  3,  and  ended  on  Thursday  at  mid- 
day. The  speakers  were  representative 
men  in  various  branches  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Church.  The  aim  of  the  conven- 
tion was  to  give  a  bird's-eye  view  of  the 
present  situation  that  has  resulted  from 
the  wide  dissemination  of  the  views  of 
the  rationalistic  critics  concerning  the 
Bible.  The  speakers  were  selected  with 
this  end  in  view.  Leaders  of  philosophic 
breadth  of  vision  were  chosen  to  set 
forth  the  nature  of  the  present  conflict 
between  faith  and  disbelief;  preachers 
and  pastors  of  large  experience  and  wide 
observation  in  the  work  of  the  churches, 
to  portray  the  practical  consequences  of 
the  critical  assault  upon  the  Bible; 
Biblical  scholars  of  the  first  rank  to  ex- 
hibit the  groundlessness  of  the  claims  of 
the  radical  critics;  and  men  in  touch 
with  the  work  of  instruction  in  the  Bible, 
to  present  suggestions  regarding  the  best 
methods  of  leading  to  a  better  syste- 
matic and  constructive  study  of  the 
Bible  as  the  Word  of  God. 

It  was  a  source  of  regret  that,  owing 
to  previously  formed  engagements  in 
connection  with  ecclesiastical  assemblies, 
seminary  commencements,  etc.,  and  to 
the  lateness  of  the  notice  sent  out, 
many  of  the  leaders  most  deeply  interest- 
ed in  the  movement,  especially  those  re- 
siding at'  a  distance,  were  unable  to  be 
present.  Among  the  many  thus  neces- 
sarily debarred  from  attendance  may  be 
mentioned  the  names  of  President  Henry 


A.  Buttz,  of  Drew  Theological  Seminary, 
Professor  Willis  J.  Beecher,  of  Auburn 
Theological  Seminary,  Professor  Wil- 
liam M.  McPheeters,  of  Columbia  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  Principal  J.  P.  Shera- 
ton, of  Wyckliffe  College,  Toronto,  and 
Principal  William  Caven,  of  Knox  Col- 
lege, Toronto,  all  among  the  original 
corporate  members  of  the  League. 

The  attendance  upon  the  meetings  was 
unexpectedly  large,  and  the  interest  and 
enthusiasm  were  of  marked  character, 
and  grew  from  the  opening  session  to 
the  close.  The  daily  press  gave  constant 
and  sympathetic  attention  and  large 
space  to  the  utterances  and  acts  of  the 
Convention,  thereby  contributing  largely 
to  its  success.  Believing  that  one  of  the 
great  New  York  dailies  was  right  in 
looking  upon  the  Convention  as  "an 
event  of  pivotal  importance,"  the  League 
determined  first  to  print  a  complete  re- 
port of  the  proceedings  in  the  May  and 
June  issues  of  The  Bible  Student  and 
Teacher,  and  later  to  give  it  the  widest 
possible  circulation  in  pamphlet  or  book 
form.  It  has  been  encouraged  to  do  this 
by  assurances  coming  from  every  quar- 
ter of  the  globe,  of  a  marvelous  awaken- 
ing of  interest  in  its  organized  move- 
ment for  the  study,  defense  and  dissem- 
ination of  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God 
and  the  Way  of  Life. 

The  President  of  the  League,  Mr.  Wil- 
liam Phillips  Hall,  presided  during  the 
Convention,  communicating  something 
of  his  own  enthusiasm  to  the  proceed- 
ings; and  Rev.  Dr.  David  James  Burrell, 
pastor  of  the  Marble  Collegiate  Church, 
took  charge  of  the  devotional  exercises 
with  peculiar  acceptance  throughout  the 
sessions. 


IRcport  of  the  Convention  in  2)etail 

TUESDAY    EVENING    SESSION,     MAY    3. 

8:00  P.  M.  President  William  Phillips  Hall  in  the  Chair. 


OPENING  DEVOTIONAL  EXERCISES. 


The  Convention  was  called  to  order  at 
8  o'clock  by  the  President,  and  the  open- 
ing devotional  exercises  immediately  fol- 
lowed. 

Prayer  by  Dr.  Burrell: 

KJod,  be  with  us  and  bless  us,  and  cause 
Thy  face  to  shine  upon  us;  and  be  gra- 
cious unto  us  and  help  us  in  this  service 
to  glorify  Thee.  We  ask  it  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord,  who  taught 
us  when  we  pray  to  say  (the  congrega- 
tion join  in  the  Lord's  Prayer). 

Dr.  Burrell:  Let  us  sing  Hymn  No.  776. 

"The  Church's  one  foundation 
Is  Jesus  Christ,  her  Lord." 

Responsive  reading  from  the  Nine- 
teenth Psalm. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  Dr.  Schmauk: 
Almighty  and  ever-living  God,  before 
Thou  hadst  formed  the  earth  and  the 
world,  even  from  everlasting  to  everlast- 
ing Thou  art  God.  By  Thy  word  didst 
Thou  form  the  heavens  and  the  earth;  by 
Thy  word  are  we  established  in  our 
earthly  life;  by  Thy  word  do  the  seas 
and  the  tides  and  all  the  orbs  of  heaven 


move  continually  in  their  courses;  by 
Thy  word  are  we  redeemed;  by  Thy 
word  we  walk  by  faith;  and  in  Thy  word, 
trusting,  and  hoping  and  going  onward, 
we  shall  fight  the  battle  of  life  until,  by 
the  promises  of  Thy  word  and  by  the 
redemption  of  Thy  Living  Son,  who  was 
before  all  worlds,  the  Eternal  Word,  we 
shall  see  the  truth  as  it  is  forever. 

O,  mighty  God,  do  Thou  establish 
what  Thou  hast  ordained  from  of  old. 
Do  Thou  grant  life,  and  strength,  and 
power  in  Thy  Spirit  to  the  testimonies 
that  have  come  down  from  the  ages.  Do 
Thou  enable  us  to  discern,  and  also  to 
make  clear  to  all  round  about  us,  that 
God  still  lives,  that  His  Word  still 
stands,  and  that  we  are  Thine,  safe  in 
Thine  everlasting  keeping,  and  through 
all  the  ages  in  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord. 
Amen! 

Dr.  Burrell:  Now,  let  us  all  sing  No. 
85: 

"How  precious  is  the  book  divine, 
By  inspiration  given." 

We  will  sing  the  whole  five  verses,  and 
will  all  sing  No.  85. 


STATEMENT     OF     THE    AIMS     OF     THE     LEAGUE 
STATEMENT  OF  PRESIDENT  WILLIAM  PHILLIPS  HALL. 


In  reverently  opening  the  first  Conven- 
tion of  The  American  Bible  League  in 
the  name  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus 
Christ,  it  gives  us  pleasure  to  state  that 
the  object  of  the  League  is  "to  organize 
the  friends  of  the  Bible,  to  promote  a 
more  reverential  and  conservative  study 
of  the  Sacred  Volume,  and  to  maintain 
the  historic  faith  of  the  Church  in  its  di- 
vine inspiration  and  supreme  authority 
as  the  Word  of  God." 

To  realize  most  fully  its  objects  the 


League  proposes  to  lead  Christians  to  a 
better  and  more  comprehensive  and  com- 
plete mastery  of  the  Bible  itself;  espe- 
cially as  found  in  the  English  versions; 
and,  in  carrying  out  this  purpose,  to  pro- 
mote everywhere  a  devout,  constructive 
study  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  and  in  its 
various  books  and  parts,  by  the  common 
sense  and  rational,  or  truly  scientific 
method,  and  with  the  aid  of  all  the  light 
that  can  be  thrown  upon  it  from  all 
sources,  thereby  to  meet  and  counteract 


the  errors  now  current  concerning  its 
truthfulness,  integrity  and  authority  as 
the  Word  of  God. 

To  represent  the  League  as  having 
been  organized  to  oppose  the  work  of 
The  Religious  Education  Association,  as 
has  been  unfortunately  done  by  some,  is 
to  misrepresent  most  grossly  the  facts  in 
the  case.  As  a  matter  of  possible  histor- 
ical interest,  the  primary  planning  of  the 
organization  of  an  American  Bible 
League  by  the  late  Rev.  Dr.  George  T. 
Purves,  Rev.  Dr.  Willis  J.  Beecher,  Rev. 
Dr.  Howard  Osgood,  Rev.  Dr.  Daniel  S. 
Gregory  and  others,  including  the  speak- 
er, took  place  some  five  years  ago — sev- 
eral years  before  the  Religious  Education 
Association  was  organized  or  publicly 
known. 

If  great  spiritual  and  moral  needs  jus- 
tify the  organization  of  great  movements 
to  meet  them,  and  if  great  perils  justify 
great  and  extraordinary  alarms,  then  The 
American  Bible  League  is  justified,  not 
only  in  its  organization,  but  also  in  the 
great  Christian  educational  movement  it 
aims  to  promote,  and  in  the  extraordi- 
nary alarm  it  endeavors  to  sound  in  view 
of  the  active  and  widespread  workings 
of  what  appears  to  be  nothing  less  than 
a  great  scholastic  apostasy  in  Christen- 
dom at  the  present  time. 

Fascinated  by  a  strange  scholarship 
multitudes  among  the  leaders  in  the 
Christian  ministry  and  educational  work 
have  turned  aside  in  large  part  from  the 
faith   which  was   delivered   once   for   all 


to  the  saints,  to  worship  at  the  shrine 
of  a  rationalistic  criticism  that  destroys 
individual  faith  in  the  divine  origin,  in- 
tegrity, inspiration  and  authority  of  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, and  that,  sooner  or  later,  logic- 
ally and  inevitably  leads  to  the  denial  of 
the  incarnation,  omniscience,  atonement 
and  supreme  authority  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. 

In  pursuance  of  the  purpose  the 
League  aims  to  accomplish  we  propose 
in  this  Convention  to  show: 

First. — That  the  Bible  is  now  being 
subjected  to  a  scholastic  assault  of  un- 
paralleled danger; 

Second. — That  the  practical  conse- 
quences of  this  assault  are  in  evidence  in 
the  demoralization  of  conduct  and  edu- 
cation, and  in  evil  influence  on  the  min- 
istry and  missions; 

Third. — That  the  assault  is  based  upon 
groundless  claims  of  a  false  scholarship; 
and 

Fourth. — That  the  methods  proposed 
by  the  League  will  fully  meet  the  impera- 
tive needs  of  the  situation,  and  lead  to 
a  recovery  of  faith  in  the  Bible  as  the 
Word  of  God,  and  to  the  enthronement 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  hearts  of 
men. 

In  carrying  out  our  great  work,  we 
shall  meet  Biblical  experts  with  Biblical 
experts  of  the  highest  rank,  and  a  nega- 
tive, destructive  scholarship,  with  a  posi- 
tive, constructive  scholarship  that,  please 
God,  shall  win  the  day. 


STATEMENT  OF  DR.  GREGORY,  THE  GENERAL  SECRETARY. 


President  Hall:  It  now  gives  me  very 
great  pleasure  to  announce  as  the  first 
speaker  of  the  evening,  the  Rev.  Daniel 
S.  Gregory,  the  General  Secretary  of  The 
American  Bible  League.  Dr.  Gregory  is 
widely  known  as  ex-President  of  the 
Lake  Forest  University,  as  Managing 
Editor  of  that  most  useful  work,  the 
Standard  Dictionarj%  and  later  as  Editor 
of  The  Homiletic  Review,  but  most  par- 
ticularly as  a  staunch  champion  of  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 

Dr.  Gregory  will  express  to  you  more 
fully  the  objects  and  plans  of  the  League, 
as  introductory  to  the  principal  address- 


es of  the  evening.     Permit  me  to  intro- 
duce Dr.  Gregory. 


Dr.  Gregory:  I  have  been  asked,  not 
to  make  an  address,  but  to  make  a  state- 
ment concerning  the  objects  and  aims 
of  the  League. 

The  American  Bible  League  stands 
first,  last  and  all  the  time  for  the  Bible  as 
the  inspired  Word  of  God,  the  only  way 
of  Life  for  lost  sinners,  and  the  only  au- 
thoritative rule  of  Christian  faith  and 
conduct.  It  came  into  existence  in  rec- 
ognition of  the  fact  that  the  present 
death-grapple  between  faith  and  disbelief 


centres  in  the  Bible  and  involves  the 
question  of  Bible  or  no  Bible.  That  de- 
termines its  object,  and  its  aim  and 
method. 

In  the  view  of  the  League,  and  justify- 
ing its  right  to  exist,  two  absolutely  con- 
tradictory statements  of  the  nature,  val- 
ue, and  claims  of  the  Bible  are  struggling 
for  the  supremacy. 

There  is  the  old  view,  that  the  Bible  is 
a  divine  production,  the  inspired  record 
of  God's  revelation  of  the  unfolding  of 
His  purpose  for  the  redemption  of  lost 
man.  It  reveals  the  onl>  and  exclusive 
religion   from  God. 

According  to  this  view,  it  is  the  Word 
of  God,  carrying  with  it  the  authority  of 
.God;  and  so,  on  the  evidences  it  pre- 
sents for  the  justification  of  its  claims,  is 
to  be  reverently  received  and  loyally 
submitted  to  by  man  as  the  only  way  of 
salvation  and  the  final  and  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice. 

The  supreme  question  with  which  to 
approach  it  is  always  "What  has  God 
said?" 

There  is  also  a  new  view,  that  the 
Bible  is  simply  a  human  production,  a 
natural  evolution  from  the  experiences  of 
the  Hebrew  race.  Its  religion  is  merely 
one  of  the  many  ethnic  religions,  with  in- 
numerable and  obvious  defects  and  con- 
tradictions, and  entirely  without  divine 
inspiration  (except  of  the  kind  that 
Homer  and  Shakespeare  enjoyed),  and 
with  no  special  right  to  claim  divine  au- 
thority over  human  reason,  conscience 
and  life.  The  Book  is  merely  the  litera- 
ture of  the  Hebrew  people — or  selec- 
tions from  that  literature — and  is  to  be 
treated  precisely  like  any  other  national 
literature. 

In  harmony  with  this  view,  that  the 
Bible  is  a  natural  evolution  and  not  a 
divine  revelation  and  movement,  in  the 
study  of  the  Book,  a  new  theory  of  the 
universe  has  been  introduced.  Nature 
and  the»natural  have  been  substituted  for 
God  and  the  supernatural;  and  Evolution 
put  in  the  place  of  creation,  providence 
and  grace. 

To  meet  the  exigencies  of  this  hypo- 
thesis a  new  method  of  treatment  has 
been  invented  and  pushed  to  the  front. 
The  study  of  the  Bible  as  the  completed 


and  authoritative  revelation  of  God,  to 
find  out  what  God  has  said  in  it,  has 
been  displaced  by  an  unjustifiable  liter- 
ary and  critical  method,  that  assumes 
that  the  Bible  is  mere  literature,  orig- 
inating, like  the  literatures  of  Babylon 
and  Greece  and  Rome,  in  legend  and 
myth,  and  being  a  primitive  record  of 
man's  early  condition  of  savagery  and 
idolatry.  Upon  this  assumed  crazy-quilt 
material,  made  up  of  shreds  and  patches 
of  every  conceivable  origin  and  author- 
ship, so-called  scholars  have  set  them- 
selves, by  this  literary  and  critical 
method,  to  the  task  of  taking  apart  the 
bits  and  scraps,  throwing  away  what- 
ever does  not  suit  their  critical  fancies 
and  vagaries,  and  patching  the  tattered 
remnants  into  the  thousand  and  one  new 
crazy-quilts  of  the  critics. 

In  this  work  they  have  been  given  free 
scope,  while  Christian  people  have  been 
asked,  in  the  interest  of  Christian  peace 
and  harmony,  to  wait  meekly  for  the 
wonderful  results  to  be  reached, — being 
exhorted  in  the  meantime  to  avoid  any 
wicked  manifestations  of  controversial 
perversity.  And  they  have  waited,  and 
at  last  we  have  the  results  of  this  free- 
hand method,  and  can  judge  of  their 
value. 

The  historical  and  critical  results  of 
the  new  view  and  method  have  been  em- 
bodied for  us  in  new  commentaries,  in 
the  "Encyclopaedia  Biblica"  in  the  Poly- 
chrome Bible,  and  latest  of  all  in  the 
"Narratives  of  the  Beginnings  of  Hebrew 
History,  from  the  Creation  to  the  Es- 
tablishment of  the  Hebrew  Kingdom," 
just  published  as  the  first  instalment  of 
the  "Students'  Old  Testament"  (the  title 
should  have  added  to  it:  "With  the  Old 
Testament  Left  Out") — all  these  together 
giving  a  partial  revelation  of  their  irra- 
tional and  monstrous  quality. 

In  the  application  of  the  new  method 
to  the  Old  Testament,  one  finds  astound- 
ing results. 

On  a  single  page  in  the  Polychrome 
Bible  are  "nineteen  different  little  por- 
tions pieced  together  to  make  one  small 
fragment  of  history,  all  of  which  snippets 
the  critic  professes  to  be  able  to  separate 
and  assign  to  different  writers  who  had 
a  hand  in  the  business," — and  all  this  in 


spite  of  the  fact  that  there  is  not  a 
whisper  in  all  history  or  even  in  tra- 
dition of  the  existence  of  any  such 
writers  or  of  any  such  work  done  by 
them  I 

In  the  "Encyclopaedia  Biblica,"  Pro- 
fessor Cheyne  finds,  in  Volume  III.,  that 
about  one-half — 42  out  of  95 — of  the 
proper  names  are  derivatives  from  Jerah- 
meel,  including  among  them  Laadah, 
and  Laban,  and  Ladan,  and  Maacah  and 
Machpelah,  and  all  the  long  list.  He 
finds,  too,  that  the  names  in  the  earlier 
volumes — of  Aram,  Amram,  Abram,  De- 
borah, Ham,  Jerubbaal,  Balaam,  Amclck, 
Ammcn,  and  many  more — are  all  corrup- 
tions of  the  same  Jerahmeel, — so  that 
this  becomes  the  one  dominant  name  in 
the  Old  Testament.  And  yet  Jerahmeel 
occurs  only  once  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  Jerahmeelites  but  once! 

In  their  application  to  the  Gospels,  in 
the  same  work.  Professor  Schmiedel 
finds  that  there  are  only  seven  facts  left 
that  can  be  at  all  depended  upon  as  his- 
torical, and  every  one  of  these  is  abso- 
lutely insignificant,  so  far  as  Christian 
truth  is  concerned. 

And  now  we  are  having  put  in  at- 
tractive form,  pushed  upon  the  public  by 
great  publishers  and  in  the  name  of 
great  universities,  a  series  of  Textbooks 
for  Schools  and  Colleges  and  Sunday 
Schools,  to  give  these  views  the  largest 
possible  vogue,  and  to  place  them  where 
they  shall  do  the  utmost  possible  in  un- 
dermining the  old  faith  in  the  Bible  as 
the  Word  of  God! 

Here,  as  a  sample,  is  the  reconstruc- 
tion sent  out  in  the  "Messages  of  the 
Lawgivers" — for  the  enlightenment  of 
the  School.^  and  Colleges — stating  what 
is  left  of  the  Old  Testament  down  to  the 
time  of  King  Josiah:  Moses  up  in  the 
cloudland,  a  possibility,  perhaps,  and 
somewhere — and  then  reaching  down  for 
an  indefinite  period,  precedents,  customs, 
tradit'"ons, — only  a  few  uncertain  frag- 
ments being  left  before  the  time  of  Jo- 
siah, when  the  priests  invented  a  patch 
of  what  is  now  Deuteronomy,  and  bj'  a 
pious  fraud  palmed  it  off  on  the  pious 
Josiah  and  the  ignorant  people  as  the 
Law  of  Jehovah!  The  Old  Testament, 
as  we  have  it,  is  represented  as  having 


been  produced  centuries  later,  just  before 
the  coming  of  Christ! 

In  this  process  of  criticism  they  have 
wrought  havoc  with  the  doctrines  as  well 
as  f5cts  of  the  Bible.  They  have  dis- 
credited or  discarded  every  essential 
truth  of  the  Scriptures, — revelation,  in- 
opiratioM,  redemption,  atonement,  regen- 
eration; the  virgin  birth  and  the  deity 
and  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ;  and 
all  the  basal  doctrines  and  motives  in- 
volved in  missions  and  the  world's  evan- 
gelization. 

It  is  this  condition  of  things — some  of 
the  astounding  facts  concerning  which 
you  will  hear  in  the  course  of  this  Con- 
vention from  some  of  the  ablest  men  in 
this  country,  —  it  is  this  condition  of 
things  that  The  American  Bible  League 
desires  to  remedy.  These  shreds  of  the 
Bible  are  manifestly  no  Bible  at  all  that 
reasonable  men  can  believe  or  on  which 
a  soul  can  rely  for  salvation. 

Believing  this  to  be  one  of  the  most 
serious  crises  in  the  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  the  League  has  taken  up  its 
task,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  as  we  profoundly  believe,  with 
a  two-fold  object  and  aim,  one  defensive 
and  aggressive  and  the  other  educational 
and  constructive. 

I.  It  takes  its  stand  for  the  Bible,  and 
for  the  old  view,  so  far  as  it  is  true,  and 
yet  with  open  vision  for  any  new  light 
that  may  come  from  any  source  whatso- 
ever; and  it  challenges  these  claims  of 
the  radical  criticism,  the  baselessness  of 
which  it  proposes  to  show. 

1st.  We  challenge  the  fundamental  as- 
sumption of  the  radical  critics,  that  the 
Bible  is  to  be  treated  precisely  like  any 
other  book  of  literature,  and  we  do  it 
for  a  twofold  reason: 

(i)  The  Bible  is  not  primarily  or 
chiefly  literature,  although  it  has  in  it 
confessedly  some  of  the  literary  master- 
pieces of  the  ages.  It  is  unspeakably 
more  than  literature;  it  is  God's  Way 
of  Life. 

(2)  It  is  infinitely  unlike  any  other  lit- 
erature, and  therefore  scientific  treat- 
ment requires  that  this  fact  of  difference 
be  taken  into  account  as  the  supreme 
fact.  It  stands  out  as  the  only  regenerat- 
ing and  transforming  power  among  men; 


the  source  (Prof.  Huxley,  the  Nestor  of 
the  agnostics  being  witness)  of  all  that 
is  highest  and  best  in  human  civiliza- 
tions, and  especially  in  English  and 
American  civilizations;  and  (according  to 
the  same  witness)  the  only  sure  hope  for 
even  the  moral  well-being  of  mankind 
for  the  future. 

The  logical  principle  involved  in  fa- 
vor of  the  Bible  is,  that  the  presumption 
is  always  in  favor  of  existing  institutions 
— that  they  are  here  because  they  have  a 
reason  for  being  here, — and  the  weight 
of  this  presumption  in  the  case  of  the 
Bible  is  inconceivably  great.  It  has  the 
right  of  way  until  its  claims  are  dis- 
credited by  valid  and  irresistible  proofs 
to  the  contrary, 

2d.  We  challenge  the  far-reaching  results 
of  the  new  criticism,  and  for  the  best  of 
reasons,  which  we  are  ready  to  present. 

In  our  opposition  we  do  not  object  to 
it  because  it  is  criticism.    If,  as  Matthew 
Arnold  suggests,  the  object  of  criticism 
is  to  bring  one  to  understand  and  "see 
a  literary  production  as  it  is  in  itself," 
that   is  the  very  thing  we  favor  every- 
where and  always.     We  have  nothing  to 
say  against  it  even  as  Higher  Criticism, 
which    aims    to    reach    a    correct    under- 
standing of  the  origin  and  literary  quali- 
ties of  the  literature  of  the  Bible.    This 
has  been  one  of  the  choicest  instruments 
of  the  best  scholarship  of  the   Christian 
Church  in  all  ages.     What  we  challenge 
is   the   application   to   the    Scriptures   of 
false  critical  principles,  the  perverted  ap- 
plication   of  correct   principles,    and   the 
substitution  of  philological  and  linguistic 
crochets  and  vagaries,  that  have  no  claim 
to  be  called  literary,  for  the  study  of  the 
grand    elements    of   artistic   construction 
which    are    the    soul    of    literature,    and 
which    have    won    the    acknowledgment 
from    all    competent    critics    that    these 
Books  of  the  Bible  are  among  the  liter- 
ary masterpieces  of  all  time.    We  are  so 
foolish,  if  you  choose  to  call  it  that,  as 
to    prefer    the    grand    constructions    of 
Moses  and  the  Prophets,  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  and  John   and  Paul,  to  the  petty 
crazy-quilt  reconstructions   of  Professor 
Go-as-you-please,    critic    and    iconoclast, 
whether  he  hail  from  Germany  or  Britain 
■>  or  Scotland  or  America. 


We  do  not  challenge  the  new  views  be- 
cause they  are  scientific,  but  because  they 
are  unscientific, — ignoring  all  the  basal 
facts  in  their  so-called  inductions.  There 
is  not  a  shred  of  science  in  it  all,  process 
and  product  included.  We  affirm,  and  in 
the  course  of  our  future  work  expect  to 
show  that  the  critical  view  is  made  up 
largely  of  reckless  assertions  and  base- 
less conclusions  in  about  equal  propor- 
tions. 

Nor  do  we  object  to  the  results 
reached  and  propounded  because  they 
are  new.  They  are  not  new.  One  can 
parallel  the  statements  of  every  one  of 
the  present-day  boasted  new  principles 
from  the  works  of  Thomas  Paine  and 
his  co-laborers.  He  can  match  every 
one  of  the  new  positions  from  the  pre- 
decessors of  Paine,  all  the  way  back  to 
Porphyry,  and  to  the  objections  thrust 
at  our  Lord  Himself  by  the  lawyers  and 
scribes  and  Pharisees;  and  he  can  trace 
the  spirit  of  them  all  back  to  that  in- 
sidious word  whispered  to  Mother  Eve 
by  the  tempter:  "Yea,  hath  God  said?" 
We  oppose  the  new  exploitation  of 
radical  results,  primarily  and  principally, 
however,  because  they  are  not  true; 
while  the  Bible,  according  to  the  old  in- 
terpretation of  it,  is  true,  and  eternal 
truth.  History,  science,  archeology,  true 
literary  criticism,  ripe  Christian  experi- 
ence, all  combine  to  shatter  the  claims  of 
the  critics,  and  to  confirm  the  claims  of 
the  Bible. 

Here  is  a  crucial  test.  It  is  a  fact  that 
this  old  Book  meets  fairly  and  settles 
rightly  the  great  and  unchanging  prac- 
tical problems  of  existence  that  have 
pressed  upon  every  human  soul  from 
Adam  down, — the  only  practical  ques- 
tions that  can  have  any  permanent  in- 
terest for  an  immortal  soul.  Nature  sug- 
gests and  man  carries  in  his  bosom  at 
least  five  of  these  great  religious  prob- 
lems, from  which  we  cannot  escape: 
Whence  came  I?  On  whom  can  I  de- 
pend? Whence  the  evil  which  I  find 
within  and  around  me?  Is  there  any  way 
to  escape?  May  I  hope  for  such  escape 
and  a  future  life?  Now  this  Bible  gives 
the  only  clear,  certain  and  reasonable 
answer  to  these  ever-living  questions,  in 
its  doctrines  of  Creation,  Providence,  the 
8 


Fall  into  sin,  the  Incarnation,  and  the 
Crucifixion  and  Resurrection  of  Christ. 
It  deals,  not  with  the  passing  show  of 
this  world,  but  with  these  problems  that 
grow  out  of  the  bottom  facts  of  man 
and  of  history,  and  it  always  commends 
itself  as  giving  the  supreme  and  eternal 
truth  on  all  these  vital  points,  all  center- 
ing in  the  incarnate,  living,  dying,  risen, 
reigning  Christ.  And  it  confirms  its 
claims  by  many  and  infallible  proofs. 
Outside  of  it  there  is  not  even  one  faint 
whisper  of  hope  for  man  in  all  the  uni- 
verse, so  that  we  are  shut  up  to  it  as 
God's  answer  to  these  questions  that  will 
not  down.  The  Bible  answers  demon- 
strate their  right  of  way  by  matching 
the  eternal  realities  and  needs. 

Do  we  object  to  these  critical  results 
because  they  are  destructive?  Yes. 
Only  a  fool  thinks  of  living  regardless  of 
consequences.  The  fact  that  they  are  de- 
structive— to  conscience,  conduct,  char- 
acter, the  soul — demonstrates  that  they 
are  not  of  God,  and  not  in  harmony  with 
Him,  for  in  God's  world  on  God's  side 
is  the  only  safe  place,  and  in  obeying  him 
the  only  salvation. 

But  all  this  is  merely  negative  and 
defensive;  it  is  not  to  be  the  chief  thing. 
The  positive  and  constructive  side  is  to 
be  presented  at  a  later  session.  Here  I 
need  only  suggest  it  in  outline,  deferring 
the  unfolding  of  it  till  that  occasion. 


II.  The  League  proposes,  as  its  main 
business,  to  help  the  people  to  see  the 
Bible  as  it  is,  and  to  find  out  what  is 
in  it. 

Its  purpose  is  to  organize  the  friends 
of  the  Bible  in  order  to  give  men  a  larger 
and  better  view  of  it  as  the  Word  of 
God  and  the  Way  of  Life, — a  view  that 
shall  be  worthy  to  replace  all  this  misdi- 
rected scholarship  and  learning,  and  by 
its  self-evident  power  make  clear  as  sun- 
light the  worthlessness  of  all  these 
boasted  conclusions  and  results  that  run 
counter  to  the  teachings  of  Scripture. 
In  carrying  out  this  purpose — 
1st.  It  will  stand  for  the  unity  of  the 
Bible,  and  will  seek  to  find  in  the  Book 
a  divine  plan  that  shall  commend  it  to 
all  reasonable  minds. 

2(1.  It  proposes  to  advocate  a  method 
of  Bible  Study  and  instruction  that  shall 
be  really  scientific,  and  so  be  natural, 
constructive  and  cumulative;  and  that 
shall  help  Christians  to  master  for  them- 
selves what  is  in  the  Bible. 

3d.  It  proposes  to  organize  the  friends 
of  the  Bible,  and  push  a  propaganda  for 
the  rational  study  and  mastery  of  the 
Bible  itself,  with  the  purpose  if  may  be 
of  reaching  the  ends  of  the  earth  with  its 
message  of  life. 

This  educational  and  constructive  work 
will  be  set  forth  at  a  later  stage  of  this 
Convention. 


President  Hall:  Among  the  princes  of 
the  world  of  Christian  education,  stands 
one  today,  as  he  has  stood  for  many 
years,  a  staunch  champion  for  that  faith 
that  was  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  as  it  is  now  the  faith  taught  by 
The  American  Bible  League,  and  by  all 


those  who  stand  upon  the  platform  upon 
which  we  stand.  I  have  the  pleasure  of 
introducing  to  you  Rev.  Dr.  Francis  L. 
Patton,  President  of  Princeton  Theolog- 
ical Seminary,  who  will  now  address  us 
on  the  principal  topic  of  the  evening, 
"The  Present  Assault  on  the  Bible." 


iT^rst  Oeneral  Clopic 


"THE     PRESENT     ASSAULT     ON     THE     BIBLE" 

ADDRESS     OF     PRESIDENT     PATTON 
"The  Issue  Between  Supernaturalism  and  Atheism'' 


My  Christian  friends,  I  am  here  to- 
night because  I  am  glad  to  show  my 
sympathy  with  the  object  of  this  meet- 
ing, and  because  I  am  in  the  heartiest 
accord  with  the  aims  and  purposes,  and, 
so  far  as  I  understand  them,  with  the 
methods  of  this  Bible  League.  I  hope 
that  this  will  appear  in  the  remarks  that 
I  shall  make,  and,  yet,  I  want  to  warn 
you  in  advance,  that  what  I  say  may  bet- 
ter be  called  a  talk  than  an  address,  cer- 
tainly better  be  called  a  talk  than  a  lec- 
ture. I  am  going  to  speak  very  freely 
and  very  unconventionally  on  this  ques- 
tion; and  I  want  to  say  a  few  things  by 
way  of  preliminary  remarks. 

Of  course,  there  is  a  certain  polemic 
setting  to  this  Conference,  and  in  a  met- 
aphorical sort  of  way  we  are  speaking  as 
though  we  were  engaged  in  a  great  war- 
fare; so  we  are;  and  as  though  a  great 
assault  were  being  made  with  malice 
aforethought  upon  the  integrity  of  our 
faith.  Now,  I  wish  before  I  proceed 
any  further  to  acquit  any  one  involved 
in  this  controversy  of  any  conscious  de- 
sire to  do  wrong,  or  of  any  hostile  atti- 
tude. I  think  the  thing  to  do  is  to  recog- 
nize that  we  are  a  set  of  intellectual  be- 
ings, and  that  some  of  us  have  intellect- 
ual convictions,  and  that  some  other  peo- 
ple differ  with  us  in  their  intellectual 
conclusions  in  regard  to  this  matter.  My 
experience  is,  not  that  people  wax  hot, 
so  much  as  that  they  are  so  cold-blooded. 
They  have  not  interest  enough  to  be 
controversial;  there  is  no  controversy. 
It  is  as  though  a  man  should  meet  you  on 
the  street  and  challenge  your  integrity, 
your  veracity,  your  honor;  and  instead 
of  resenting  it,  as  you  might,  you  should 
say  to  him,  "Well,  my  friend,  that  is  a 
matter  of  difference  between  us.  You 
are  in  one  psychological  climate,  and  I 
am  in  another  psychological  climate.  Let 
us  get  down  to  the  facts  and  study  this 
matter  inductively,  and  see  where  we  will 


come  out."  That  seems  to  be  the  tem- 
per of  this  day. 

And,  then,  I  want  to  make  another  re- 
mark still  prefatory: — you  can  gather 
from  the  prefatory  how  long  the  address 
will  be — that  I  have  not  any  heart  to  find 
fault  with  a  man  who  says  he  wants  to 
criticise  the  Bible.  Why  not?  Let  him. 
If  we  have  confidence  in  it,  don't  we  be- 
lieve it  will  come  out  all  right?  You 
can't  shut  it  up  in  a  glass  case.  You  can't 
make  an  Index  expurgatorius  and  tell 
men  they  must  not  read  these  bad  books 
that  criticise  the  Bible.  If  the  Bible 
can't  stand  in  the  daylight,  there  is  no 
use  of  your  keeping  it  in  the  dark.  It  has 
got  to  conform  to  the  canons  of  criti- 
cism that  we  apply  to  other  things.  It 
has  got  to  stand  that  test  or  go  down. 
Don't  be  afraid  of  it.  Take  hold  of  the 
butt-end  of  this  question  right  now. 

I  want  to  make  another  prefatory  re- 
mark: I  am  not  concerned  here  to-night 
about  inspiration — I  have  a  theory  of  in- 
spiration, and  it  might  be  interesting  if 
there  was  time  to  consider  it,  but  it  is  not 
pertinent  to  this  subject — I  have  not  any 
concern  to-night  with  any  theory  of  in- 
spiration. Christianity  is  not  identified 
with  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 
Don't  forget  it  now.  The  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures  is  a  doctrine  taught  in 
the  Scriptures.  The  Divinity  of  Christ 
is  a  doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures. 
Do  I  need  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures to  back  up  the  Divinity  of  Christ? 
Well,  then,  don't  I  need  the  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures  to  back  up  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures?  I  can  not  assume 
the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  in  order 
to  prove  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 
I  tell  you  if  your  Christianity  will  stand 
without  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
it  will  stand  a  fortiori  with  it.  Nobody 
is  going  to  push  me  to  the  edge,  so  far  as 
all  that  is  concerned.  I  tell  you  I  am 
still  in  a  ship  that  is  pretty  well  provided 


10 


with  compartments,  longitudinal  and 
transverse,  and  the  bulkheads  are  shut  all 
the  time,  every  one  of  them.  You  can 
break  a  hole  in  one  and  fill  it;  she  won't 
sink. 

Now,  I  want  to  say  one  word  more,  and 
that  is  that  in  the  management  of  this 
controversy,  you  have  to  depend  on  the 
specialists;  you  have  to.  They  are  the 
only  ones  that  know  anything  about  it. 
What  do  I  know  about  it?  What  I 
mean  is  that,  in  the  details  of  criticism,  in 
the  minute  form  which  criticism  assumes  at 
the  present  time,  Old  Testament  and 
New  Testament,  the  questions  are  of 
such  a  character  that  you  have  to  have 
the  Old  Testament  man  to  deal  with  the 
Old  Testament  questions,  and  the  New 
Testament  man  to  deal  with  the  New 
Testament  questions;  and  if  one  tries  to 
be  both  an  Old  Testament  man  and  a 
New  Testament  man,  he  is  very  likely 
not  to  be  very  much  of  either. 

Now  then,  you  have  to  meet  minute 
special  learning  of  one  kind  with  minute 
special  learning  of  the  other  kind.  You 
will  have  some  of  that  kind  here.  There 
will  be  conservative  critics  in  this  com- 
pany. I  am  not  one  of  them,  because  I 
am  not  a  critic;  if  I  were,  I  would  be 
conservative.  But  then,  what  we  want 
meanwhile — you  can  let  the  critics  fight 
this  battle  out,  and  you  can  have  implicit 
faith  in  the  outcome.  We  have  got  a 
good  set  of  attorneys.  We  are  not  let- 
ting the  case  go  by  default  by  any 
means:  and  when  it  gets  up  to  the  Su- 
preme Court,  we  count  on  a  decision  in 
our  favor,  too.  But,  meanwhile,  that  is  the 
point,  meanwhile  we  do  not  want  our 
ministerial  brethren  to  lose  heart  and  min- 
imize, and  think  the  thing  is  all  gone,  stop 
preaching  doctrines  and  fill  their  sermons 
with  these  pretty  little  amenities  of  so- 
ciology and  sentimentality.  What  we  want 
is  that  meanwhile  our  people  shall  not 
grow  indiflferent  and  think  that  this 
whole  fight  is  a  mere  matter  of  placing 
the  emphasis,  a  mere  question  of  whe- 
ther you  will  have  one  doctrine  more  or 
less;  it  is  not  so.  And  if  I  do  not  do 
anything  else  tonight,  I  hope,  at  least, 
I  shall  do  this — indeed  I  do  not  expect 
to  do  anything  more;  this  is  what  I  came 


for — I  do  want  to  make  it  as  clear  as  sun- 
light what  this  issue  is  all  about;  because 
I  tell  you,  it  is  not  a  question  as  to 
whether  this  doctrine  is  true  or  that  doc- 
trine is  true,  whether  this  man  wrote 
that  book  or  that  man  wrote  the  other; 
it  is  a  question  as  to  the  very  life  of  the 
Christian  religion  in  any  sense  that  the 
Christian  religion  can  have  any  signifi- 
cance for  you  or  me. 

Now,  then,  what  do  we  mean  by  the 
Christian  religion?  For,  after  all,  it  is 
not  a  question  of  higher  Criticism  or 
lower  Criticism.  The  issue  is  joined  now 
on  the  question  as  to  what  is  Christian- 
ity. 

Christianity  a  Piece  of  Supernatural  In- 
formation. 

Now,  one  answer  to  that  question  is 
this: — I  think  it  is  the  answer  we  have 
all  been  accustomed  to — It  is  a  piece  of 
supernatural  information  with  respect  to 
the  way  of  salvation  from  the  perils  of 
eternal  death,  through  the  blood-shed- 
ding of  Jesus  Christ.  That  is  what  it 
is.  That  is  the  gospel  you  and  I  were 
brought  up  on.  That  is  the  gospel  that 
is  being  preached  in  this  pulpit,  thank 
God,  every  Sunday  by  my  friend,  Dr. 
Burrell. 

Now,  they  are  making  a  great  deal 
these  days  of  the  distinction  between  the 
judgments  of  fact  and  judgments  of 
value.  I  tell  you  that  if  Christianity  is 
what  we  were  brought  up  to  think  it  to 
be,  it  begins  with  the  judgment  of  fact. 
Whether  the  play  of  Hamlet  is  a  great 
production,  is  a  judgment  of  value.  Whe- 
ther Shakespeare  wrote  it  or  Bacon,  is  a 
judgment  of  fact.  The  question  of 
Christianity  as  we  understand  it,  is  a 
question  of  fact.  Has  any  information 
been  lodged  anywhere  in  regard  to  the 
way  of  salvation?  That  is  the  issue. 
Now,  if  it  has  been  lodged  anywhere,  it 
is  a  matter  of  the  greatest  moment  for 
you  and  for  me  where  we  are  to  look  for 
it.  If  you  say  you  are  looking  for  it  in 
the  Church,  even  the  Church — whether 
she  be  only  a  trustee;  and  still  more,  if 
she  pretend  to  speak  in  the  present  tense 
— needs  the  Scriptures  to  back  her  up; 
and  the  question  as  to  whether  she  has 


corrupted  the  inheritance,  or  is  teaching 
what  she  was  told  to  teach,  or  has  in  her 
possession  the  same  old  deposit  of  faith, 
is  a  question  to  be  tested  by  comparison 
with  the  inspired  Word.  So  that  even 
when  you  put  the  seat  of  authority  in  the 
Church,  you  have  got  to  get  back  to  the 
Scriptares  to  support  the  Church.  There- 
fore, it  is  not  strange  that,  believing  that 
'God  has  given  us  a  piece  of  information, 
and  has  lodged  it  in  the  written  Word, 
we  should  be  intensely  interested  in  the 
question  what  that  Word  has  to  say. 
Why,  my  friends,  if  we  believe  it — now, 
it  is  a  great  question  as  to  whether  we 
do  or  not — but,  if  we  believe  that  the 
Almighty  has  put  into  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  His  an- 
swer to  thi.s  question  how  you  and  I  can 
be  delivered  from  eternal  peril,  we  are 
simply  idiotic  if  we  are  not  interested  in 
what  that  Word  has  to  say.  But  that  is 
not  all.  In  days  gone  by,  in  the  days 
within  the  recollection  of  some  of  us 
who  are  over  fifty  years  of  age,  it  was  an 
understood  thing  that  every  question  in 
theology — whether  it  was  the  Divinity  of 
Christ,  or  the  Future  State,  or  Justifica- 
tion by  Faith,  or  what  not — every  ques- 
tion was  settled  on  exegetical  grounds, 
and  by  an  appeal  to  a  text  of  Scripture. 
We  all  know  that — now,  don't  we?  Now, 
why  has  exegesis  gone  by  the  board? 
Because  a  change  has  come  over  the 
world  to  a  very  large  extent  in  this  mat- 
ter, and  men,  if  they  will  really  be  hon- 
est with  themselves  and  scrutinize  their 
own  thinking,  will  realize  that  it  is  not 
always  a  question  with  them  what  the 
Word  has  to  say,  but  whether  they  are 
bound  by  it,  even  when  they  know  what 
it  says. 

Now,  what  has  produced  this  change? 
Two  things,  two  things.  In  the  first 
place,  men  have  come  by  a  new  phil- 
osophy of  religion,  holding  which  they 
are  obliged  to  put  a  new  meaning  on  the 
Bible,  and  so  stand  in  a  new  attitude 
toward  it.  In  the  second  place,  men 
have  come  to  the  literary  criticism  of  the 
Bible,  and  as  the  outcome  of  that  liter- 
ary criticism  they  have  been  forced  to 
find  that  they  can  not  hold  the  old  view 
of  Christianity,  and  are,  therefore,  adopt- 


ing a  new  philosophy  of  religion.  Now, 
do  you  not  see  a  new  philosophy  of  re- 
ligion, forcing  some  men  to  a  new  view 
of  the  Bible,  and  a  new  view  of  the  Bible 
forcing  other  men  to  a  new  philosophy 
of  religion?  Two  extremes  meet  at  this 
juncture  and  in  this  crisis. 

Christianity  a  Moment  in  a  Great  Pro- 
cess of  Evolution. 

Now,  then,  under  those  circumstances, 
what  follows?  This  follows:  that  when 
you  ask  a  great  many  men  at  the  pres- 
ent time  what  they  mean  by  Christianity, 
they  will  not  give  that  old  answer.  They 
will  tell  you,  if  they  formulate  an  an- 
swer at  all,  that  Christianity  is  a  mo- 
ment, a  stage  in  a  great  cosmic  process, 
a  great  movement  of  evolution  with 
which  you  and  I  have  as  little  to  do  as 
we  do  with  the  precession  of  the  equi- 
noxes. So  there  has  been  this  great 
growth,  through  infinitesimal  grada- 
tions, and  through  all  the  phases  of  life 
until  the  period  of  religion  dawns,  and 
through  all  the  phases  of  religion  until 
the  very  climax  of  religious  experience 
has  been  reached  in  the  Christian  relig- 
ion and  in  the  Scriptures.  And  the 
Scriptures  are  simply  historical;  they  are 
the  records  of  the  religious  experience 
of  the  times  in  which  they  were  written, 
and  of  the  men  particularly  who  had  part 
in  writing  them.  They  are,  therefore, 
valuable  as  giving  us  an  account  of  the 
religious  experiences  of  those  times. 
Now  what?  What  follows?  Why,  you 
must  remember  that  under  these  circum- 
stances men  will  say  they  concede  the 
consummate  beauty  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion. It  is  the  bright  and  consummate 
flower  of  this  tree  of  Religion.  They 
concede  the  superior  advantages  of  the 
Scriptures  over  all  other  sacred  books; 
and  yet,  conceding  these  superior  advan- 
tages, they  recognize  that  they  may  con- 
tain some  very  important  truths  in  con- 
nection with  a  great  deal  of  error.  The 
myth  and  the  legend  have  not  been  elim- 
inated, and  the  allegorical  and  miracu- 
lous have  been  mixed  up  with  what  is 
historical  and  true;  but  in  the  light  of  the 
process  of  evolution,  it  is  easy  for  them 
to  realize  that  all  miracles  must  be  elim- 


inated,  and,  therefore,  in  the  light  of  that 
foregone  conclusion,  there  was  no  Pri- 
meval Innocence,  and  there  was  no  Fall, 
and  there  could  be  no  Redemption,  and 
there  can  be  no  Incarnation,  and  one  by 
one  the  doctrines  drop  away — absolutely 
every  one  goes,  except  as  you  may 
choose  to  look  upon  the  Incarnation  as  a 
beautiful  symbol  of  the  longing  that  the 
finite  mind  has  for  the  Divine;  except  as 
you  may  look  upon  the  Atonement  as  a 
beautiful  symbol  of  the  idea  that  a  man 
ought  to  be  self-sacrificing  and  live  for 
his  neighbor,  and  not  consider  his  own 
advantage;  except  as  you  may  take  each 
one  of  these  doctrines  as  suggesting 
some  beautiful  idea. 

Now,  that  is  your  Christianity.  Do 
you  care  much  about  it?  Is  there  any- 
thing for  the  poor  man,  anything  for  the 
troubled  heart,  anything  for  the  sin-sick 
soul?  Do  you  think  it  is  worth  while  to 
send  missionaries  abroad  to  preach  that? 
Why,  it  is  metaphysics,  it  is  a  philos- 
ophy; that  is  all  there  is  of  it. 

Christianity  the  Self-Revelation  of  God 
in  Jesus. 

Why,  now,  my  friends,you  say  that  He- 
gelianism  is  dead.  But  Caird  is  not  dead; 
and  you  will  find  plenty  of  men  who  will 
interpret  the  Christian  religion  for  you  in 
the  terms  of  philosophy.  But  still  men 
do  say  that  this  purely  metaphysical  re- 
ligion won't  do,  that  the  heart  craves 
something  that  this  does  not  satisfy,  and 
the  pendulum  when  it  had  gone  just  as 
far  as  it  could  go  that  way,  must  swing 
back.  And  now  it  has  gone  as  far  as  it 
could  that  way;  and  men  do  say,  "Let 
us  get  rid  of  this  metaphysics.  Let  us 
get  back  to  the  historical  Christ.  Let  us 
get  back  to  Jesus."  So,  they  get  back, 
they  get  back.  We  are  not  Hegelian 
any  more.  We  have  left  that  now.  We 
are  with  Harnack  and  the  Ritschlians 
now.  But  then,  what  have  you  got?  You 
have  given  up  Paul  and  all  his  meta- 
physics, and  his  Jewish  ways  of  looking 
at  things,  and  you  have  gone  back  to  the 
heart  of  the  gospel,  to  Jesus.  Very  well. 
Now,  what  have  you  got? 

You  say,  "You  must  not  be  metaphysi- 
cal."     Who  was  Jesus?     Christianity,  a 


piece  of  supernatural  information?  one 
answer.  Christianity,  a  moment  in  a 
great  process  of  evolution — that  is  the 
second  answer.  Christianity,  the  self- 
revelation  of  God  in  Jesus — that  is  the 
third  answer.  So,  Jesus  is  the  great  re- 
vealer  to  us  of  God.  And  men  who  write 
about  it  write  very  piously,  so  as  to  de- 
ceive the  very  elect.  And  they  tell  you 
you  must  not  be  metaphysical.  Why 
not?  Then,  if  you  can  not  be  meta- 
physical. Who  was  Jesus?  Did  He  rise 
from  the  dead?  Yes  or  no.  Now,  I  want 
a  categorical  answer,  because  if  He 
stayed  dead,  that  is  one  view;  if  He  did 
not  stay  dead,  He  rose  from  the  dead, 
and  is  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
with  power  by  the  Resurrection  from  the 
Dead. 

Did  He  live  in  a  pre-existent  state  be- 
fore he  was  born  of  Mary?  Well,  that 
is  a  metaphysical  question,  too,  and  we 
must  not  have  any  metaphysics  in  our 
theology.  Was  He  "very  God  of  very 
God?"  Was  He  "God  manifest  in  the 
flesh?"  This  is  a  hard  question;  they  do 
not  care  to  have  this  question  put  to 
them.  But  I  want  a  categorical  answer. 
I  tell  you  if  He  was  not  God,  you  have 
no  right  to  worship  Him  as  such;  and  if 
He  was  God,  you  dare  not  deny  Him. 
Which? 

Now,  they  talk  sentimentally  to  me. 
Now,  they  begin  to  tell  me  about  His 
ethics.  They  begin  to  say.  "We  don't 
want  metaphysics  or  dogma;  we  want  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount;  we  want  the  mor- 
alities of  the  gospel."  Do  you?  Very 
well.  I  will  accommodate  you.  Well, 
come  right  up  now.  We  will  not  discuss 
the  doctrines.  We  will  discuss  just  the 
morals.  Our  Lord  says  something  with 
respect  to  divorce  and  the  marriage  state. 
What  right  had  He  to  say  what  He  did? 
Do  you  authenticate  His  teachings  by 
His  authority,  or  do  you  authenticate 
His  authority  by  His  teachings?  Do 
you  value  Him  on  account  of  His  teach- 
ing, or  do  you  value  His  teaching  on 
account  of  Him?  That  is  the  question. 
Did  He  have  any  right  to  speak?  H'e 
taught  them  as  one  having  authority,  and 
not  as  the  Scribes.  Did  He  have  the  au- 
thority?    I  tell  you  that  if  He  were  a 


13 


mere  man,  if  He  were  anything  short  of 
God  T  have  very  serious  doubts  as  o 
Shelher  the  fact  that  He  taught  should 
bind  my  conscience. 

Well  now,  supposing  He  is  not  God, 
suppo  Ing  He  is  not  divine;  supposmg 
he're  is  nothing  supernatural;  supposing 
Nicodemus  was  all  wrong  ^"^J  f^f, 
Nicodemus  is  worth  a  whole  congrega 
tion    of   modern    apologetes).    when    he 

savs-  "We  know  Thou  art  a  teacher  come 
^^o'm  God.  for  no  man  can  do  these  m.a 

cles    that   Thou    doest,    except    God    be 
with  him."     Now,  I  say  if  you  give  up 
Th:  doctrines  and  give  up  the  metaphys- 
ics   and  come  down  to  simply  the  one 
hTs'torical  Jesus   of  Nazareth,  I  wish     o 
^r  what' authority  He  had  that  should 
bind    my    conscience;    and,    then,    why 
should    I    have    these    strict    views    of 
monogamy?     Is  there  any  intuition   on 
That  subject  that  anybody  carries  about 
with  him?    Have  you  got  one?    Are  you 
d  ad  suTe.  in  the  same  way  that  you  are 
fhat  two  and  two  are  four  and  that  every 
event  must  have  a  cause,  that  monogamy 
is  the  only  rule?     ^in^  ^^^^^^    ,^  .'  ^^^ 
think   so,    and    King    Solomon    did    not 
think  so;  there  are  plenty  of  people  a^l 
over  this  world  that  do  not  think  so,  so, 
if  we  are  going  to  test  an  ethical  ques- 
tion   by    the    standard    of    intuition,    as 
something  that   is  self-evident  and  uni- 
ve'sal,  you  will  find  it  hard  to  support 

Jhis  teaching  as  a  part  of  obligatory  mor- 

ality. 

Is  it  not  true,  therefore,  that  the  ques- 
tion as  to  who  Jesus  was  is  a  far  bigger 
question   than  the   question    as   to  what 
Jesus  said?     Because  the  question  as  to 
the  value  of  what  He  said  depends  upon 
the  prior  question  of  what  right  He  had 
to  say  it.     Oh,  well,  we  are  not  out  of 
the  religion  of  authority  y^t   because  we 
still  have  Jesus.    He  had  authority^  What 
authority?     If  you  rob  Him  of  His  im- 
perial purple,  and  deny  Him  His  right  to 
be  Lord  of  lords,  still  this  will  not  sat- 
isfy everybody,  and  they  say.     You  are 
still  in  the  religion  of  authority   you  are 
tying  your  Christianity  to  a  book  or  to  a 
man,  to  a  person,  to  something  external; 
and  we  will  never  get  at  the  bottom  of 
Christianity  until  we  deliver  it  altogether 


from  the  trammels  of  external  authority 
and  find  its  divine  authority  mside.  Very 
well,  let  us  try  it. 


Christianity  the  Religion  of  the  .Spirit. 

Christianity,  in  the  fourth  Pl^ce.  is  the 
religion  of  the  spirit.  We  have  left  Har- 
nack  and  the  Ritschlians.     We  are  with 

Sabatier,  now.  c.K^tJer 

Now,  what  does  he  say?  Sabatier 
says:  "Christianity  proves  itself  to  the  in- 
dividual conscience  by  the  witness  of  the 
Spirit."  Now,  I  want  to  make  J/emark 
right  there.  He  has  written  his  book 
entitled  "The  Religions  of  Authority  and 
The  Religion  of  the  Spirit,"  as  much  as 

to  sav  that  when  he  is  dealmg  with  the 
Spirit,  he  is  not  dealing  with  an  author- 
ity     He  is.     Take  up  his  particular  be- 
liefs-and  there  are  not  many  left-but 
what  few  there  are  left,  he  is  trying  to 
back  up  by  an  appeal  to  the  Spirit.     Fa- 
ternal  Theism,"  that  is,  the  outcome  of 
Christianity  is  that  God  is  love,  and  if 
you  are  good.  He  will  be  good  to  you 
and  he  supports  that  by  the  authority  of 

the  Spirit. 

It  is  not  a  question  of  authority  or  no 
authority;  but  in  his  case  it  is  an  author- 
ity that  you  can  not  put  your  finger  on. 
It  is  an  authority  that  you  can  not  lo- 
cate    It  is  an  authority  that  you  can  not 
define.     How  do  you  know  the  witness 
of  the   Spirit?     How   do  you  know?    / 
would  like   to  ask  him.     The  mystic  is 
just   as    subjectivistic    as    the    Hegelian, 
only  it  is  an  emotional  subjectivism.    Do 
you  think  that  subjectivism  is  the   less 
subjectivism  because  it  is  touched  with 

emotion? 

And  now  you  are  in  that  state,  and  you 
say  that  that  state  of  heightened  feeling 
is  the  witness  of  the  Spirit.    How  do  you 
know?     Where  did  you  ever  learn  any- 
thing about  any  Spirit,  much  less  about 
any  witness  of  any  Spirit?  Did  you  not 
learn  that  out  of  Paul?    Did  you  ^ot  get 
that  out  of  the  New  Testament?    What 
right  have  you  got  to  be  going  around 
talking  about  the  witness   of  the  Spirit 
which  you  got  out  of  Paul,  after  you  have 
discarded  Paul?    How  do  you  know  what 
is  the  witness  of  the  Spirit?    You  do  not 
know. 
14 


Sabatier  tells  us  we  are  now  in  the 
region  of  psychology  and  history.  In- 
deed we  are;  and  I  tell  you  that  when 
the  psychologist  gets  hold  of  this  relig- 
ious state,  and  begins  to  subject  it  to 
the  analysis  that  he  is  accustomed  to,  he 
will  not  know  very  much  about  the  wit- 
ness of  the  Spirit.  H'e  will  probably  tell 
us  that  that  state  of  mind  that  we  are  in 
is  abnormal,  perhaps  pathological,  and 
that  what  we  need  is  the  treatment  of 
the  physician.  You  can  not  identify — 
that  is  your  trouble — the  witness  of  the 
Spirit.  In  the  region  of  the  psychologi- 
cal and  historical?  Yes.  And  there  we 
are  brought  face  to  face  with  the  fine 
distinction  that  they  make  so  much  of, 
judgments  of  fact  and  judgments  of 
value.  And  they  say  to  us,  We  may  be  a 
little  mystical,  or  even  in  doubt;  or  we 
may  go  so  far  as  to  discard  the  judg- 
ments of  fact  altogether,  so  we  keep  the 
judgments  of  value.  Why,  "The  Good 
Samaritan"  is  a  fine  story  no  matter 
who  told  it.  "The  Prodigal  Son"  is  a 
fine  story,  no  matter  who  told  it.  The 
sentiment  of  self-sacrifice  is  a  great  idea, 
no  matter  whether  there  is  any  real 
atonement  or  not.  The  sentiment  of 
longing  after  communion  with  God  is  a 
great  idea,  no  matter  whether  there  be 
any  real  regeneration,  or  whether  there 
be  any  Incarnation  or  not.  So,  they  say 
the  historical  statement  is  a  mere  shell; 
it  is  the  idea  that  counts.  Is  that  all? 
Is  that  what  Christianity  means  too? 
And,  so,  I  have  read  men,  who,  when 
they  had  discarded  the  supernatural  ele- 
ment of  the  Old  Testament,  tell  me 
that  the  Old  Testament  furnishes 
many  interesting  lessons.  Why  you 
can  preach  about  Joseph,  if  there 
never  was  any  Joseph.  You  can  preach 
about  Abraham,  if  there  never  was  any 
Abraham.  Why,  so  you  can,  and  so 
you  could  preach  out  of  .i^sop's  Fables 
splendid  sermons,  if  that  is  what  you 
want,  if  you  can  discard  the  judgments 
of  fact,  and  just  keep  the  judgments  of 
value.  Bless  my  soul!  whoever  wanted 
such  a  Christianity  as  that?  Why,  my 
friends,  need  we  make  a  fuss  about  the 
Christian  religion^  if  that  is  the  truth 
about   the    Christian   religion?     But   the 


essence  of  Christianity  is  that  these  judg- 
ments of  value  become  judgments  of 
value  because  they  are  anchored  in  judg- 
ments of  fact;  it  is  the  fact  that  gives 
them  value. 

Now,  get  rid  of  the  doctrine  of  the  wit- 
ness of  the  Spirit,  because  that  is  a  mere 
piece  of  emotionalism.  Where  are  you 
now?  You  have  given  up  Christ,  you  have 
given  up  the  Spirit,  you  have  got  the  eth- 
ics of  the  New  Testament,  and  you  are 
going  to  hold  on  to  that.  Where  are  you? 
You  are  down  in  moral  philosophy.  You 
have  swamped  your  Christianity.  You 
are  just  where  Plato  was,  and  Aristotle 
was,  and  Cicero  was;  and  you  have  no 
more  ethical  guidance  than  they  had.  You 
have  no  more  reason  for  believing  in  the 
distinctions  of  right  and  wrong  than  they 
had;  excepting  as  Christianity  has  given 
us  some  new  ideas  in  regard  to  our  re- 
lations to  one  another.  But,  even  then, 
the  question  may  be  raised  whether 
Christianity  was  quite  right.  It  may  well 
be  a  question  whether  we  have  not  gone 
too  far  in  the  practice  of  the  passive 
virtues,  whether  it  has  not  made  us  a 
little  too  soft,  whether  Christianity  car- 
ried to  an  extreme  would  not  make  a 
very  chicken-hearted  set  of  people,  and 
result  in  the  production  of  the  wrong 
kind  of  patriotism.  That  is  what  Nietsche 
said,  and  if  Nietsche  is  right,  we  should 
glorify  the  Soldier  and  let  the  Saint  take 
a  back  seat.  You  would  say,  as  to  whe- 
ther you  should  rule  your  own  spirit  or 
not,  that  is  something  I  do  not  know, 
and  can  not  profess  to  care;  but  you 
must  take  the  city  at  all  cost!  Something 
of  that  kind  would  be  said.  Now,  isn't 
there  something  to  be  said  for  Nietsche? 
If  Christianity  is  simply  a  piece  of  mor- 
al philosophy,  and  our  value  judgments 
are  merely  ethical  sentiments,  which  in 
these  days  of  keen  analysis  have  under- 
gone a  great  deal  of  scrutiny;  if  you  go 
around  among  the  moral  philosophers — 
those  of  you  who  know  what  the  moral 
philosophy  is  at  the  present  day,  the 
Utilitarians,  Idealists,  the  School  of 
Green  and  the  School  of  Spencer — and 
ask  them  to  be  kind  enough  to  give  you 
the  loan  for  a  night  of  a  list  of  virtues 
that  j'ou   can  tie  to,  and  feel  bound  by. 


IS 


and  that  wil'  command  your  conscience, 
and  that  will  stand  the  test  of  reason, 
satisfy  your  intellect; — I  would  like  you 
to  find  the  man  that  will  do  it.  I  know 
what  I  am  talking  about.  You  can  not 
find  him. 

And,  so,  your  Christianity  drops  down 
into  moral  philosophy.  And  your  mor- 
ality goes  to  pieces,  except  as  morality 
is  an  instinct,  except  as  virtue  happens 
to  be  an  appetite. 

Ah,  my  friends,  that  is  Christianity  af- 
ter you  have  discarded  the  Bible;  in  the 


hands  of  the  modern  disciples  of  the 
Destructive  Criticism!  I  tell  you  that, 
in  the  interests  of  morality,  in  the  inter- 
ests of  the  home,  in  the  interests  of 
trade,  in  the  interests  of  civil  liberty,  in 
the  interests  of  all  that  is  best  in  this 
life,  and  all  that  is  bright  with  hope  in 
respect  to  the  life  to  come;  we  must 
keep  our  old  fashioned  Christianity;  we 
must  rehabilitate  Paul;  we  must  get 
back,  and  back,  and  back,  and  back  to 
Atoning  Blood,  or  else  we  shall  go  on  to 
atheism  and  despair. 


President  Hall:  We  have  listened,  with 
intense  interest,  to  the  address  of  Dr. 
Patton.  We  are  now  privileged  to  listen 
for  a  few  minutes   to  an  address   from 


Lebanon,  Pa.,  President  of  the  Lutheran 
General  Council  and  Editor  of  the  Lu- 
theran "Church  Review."  Dr.  Schmauk 
will   address   you    on   another   phase    of 


Rev.    Theodore    E.    Schmauk,    D.D.,    of      the  general  subject. 
ADDRESS    OF     DR.     SCHMAUK 


"Some  Counts  Against  the 

Permit  me  to  draw  your  attention  to  a 
distinction  between  a  judgment  of  fact 
and  a  judgment  of  value.  It  is  a  judg- 
ment of  fact  that  Dr.  Patton  spoke  an 
hour  and  five  minutes;  it  is  a  judgment  of 
value  that  we  might  have  listened  another 
hour  and  five  minutes  without  becoming 
tired. 

My  address  tonight  must  be  brief.  The 
present  assault  on  the  Bible  must  be  met, 
and  that  in  a  scientific  way.  In  this  work 
we  need  not  less  science  but  more.  It 
would  be  a  great  mistake  for  us  to  ques- 
tion the  motives  of  the  critics,  or  to  use 
against  them  the  methods  that  the  late 
Robert  G.  Ingersoll  used  against  the  Bi- 
ble. By  means  of  these  one  can  give 
some  hard  knocks  at  what  are  popularly 
supposed  to  be  weak  spots  in  the  Scrip- 
tures; but  this  method  of  attack,  whether 
used  for  or  against  the  Bible,  is  usually 
futile,  and  reminds  one  very  much  of  the 
attacks  and  criticisms  made  by  some 
Orientals  upon  our  Occidental  civili- 
zation. Take  some  vigorous  China- 
man or  some  wily  Brahmin,  and  the 
blows  that  he  can  deliver  against  our 
Nineteenth  Century  Western  civilization 
will  stun  us  for  the  moment;  but  after  all, 
they  do  not  touch  the  vital  region.     In 

i6 


Rationalistic  Criticism  " 

spite  of  all  the  attacks  made  by  Orientals 
upon  the  seamy  side  of  American  and 
European  civilization,  the  superiority  of 
the  latter  is  not  seriously  questioned  by 
any  of  us. 

The  subject  we  are  considering  must 
be  dealt  with  rationally  and  scientifically. 
It  is  from  this  point  of  view  that  we  are 
to  offer  what  we  have  to  say. 

I.  The  Radical  Criticism  of  the  Day 
proceeds  upon  a  hypothesis  of  Material- 
istic Evolution  that  is  untenable. 

Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  by  the  presenta- 
tion of  his  evolutionary  views,  has  done 
much  to  change  the  whole  trend  of  mod- 
ern philosophy,  as  popularly  accepted. 
Perhaps  the  conclusions  from  his  views 
have  been  more  harmful  in  Biblical  Crit- 
icism than  anywhere  else.  Taking  a  ma- 
terialistic view  of  the  world,  and  assum- 
ing that  man  possesses  in  himself  poten- 
cies that  make  for  righteousness  and  nec- 
essarily develop  into  perfection,  this  phil- 
osophy takes  away  the  need  of  a  Bible, 
and  is  often  content  to  move  on  its  way 
simply  ignoring  the  Scripture  and  its 
teachings  as  a  back  number,  and  devel- 
oping in  its  stead  theories  of  life  and 
character  and  conduct  that  can  only  be 
indirectly  connected  with  its  pages.     In 


fact,  Mr.  Spencer's  fatal  weakness  is  that 
he  attempts  to  explain  completely  the 
laws  of  higher  development  in  terms  of 
the  lower.  He  has  applied  a  mere  bio- 
logical principle  as  an  adequate  explana- 
tion of  the  phenomena  of  sociology, 
psychology,  ethics,  pedagogy  and  relig- 
ion. In  plain  words,  he  has  completely 
eliminated  the  moral  and  spiritual  from 
the  universe.  What  remains  is  not  mind 
or  soul,  but  tissue.  That  is  the  biological 
view  by  which  he  has  set  the  laws  of 
matter  to  originate  and  develop  and  con- 
trol spirit.  It  need  only  be  said  that,  in- 
genious as  his  deductions  are,  they  fall 
short  of  the  mark,  by  ignoring  or  leav- 
ing unexplained  the  main  facts  of  the 
universe  and  human  history,  and  that 
they  will  therefore  be  unable  to  stand 
the  future  test  on  account  of  this  fatal 
error.  All  that  is  best  in  humanity  is  in 
eternal  protest  against  the  principles  in- 
volved in  the  system  of  Spencer.  And  so 
is  all  that  is  best  in  the  Bible. 

II.  The  Radical  Criticism  proceeds 
upon  the  hypothesis  of  the  late  origin  of 
the  Old  Testament  Books,  in  its  later 
forms  upon  their  Post-Exilic  Origin. 

I  wish  to  draw  your  attention  to  this 
simply  to  prepare  the  way  for  giving  a 
comprehensive  view  of  what  may  be  said 
against  the  whole  theory  of  the  negative 
criticism. 

1.  All  the  positive  evidence  of  the  Old 
Testament  itself  is  against  that  hypo- 
thesis. 

2.  All  the  positive  evidence  of  the  New 
Testament  is  against  that  hypothesis. 

3.  The  evidence  of  ancient  Jewish  and 
Christian  history  is  against  that  hypo- 
thesis. 

4.  The  evidence  of  the  later  historical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  does  not 
warrant   that  hypothesis. 

5.  The  negative  theory  makes  all  Is- 
rael's literature  spring  from  the  period 
of  a  nation's  decline  and  fall,  which  is  as 
much  as  to  say  that  we  have  harvests  in 
winter  time. 

6.  The  principal  argument  of  the  nega- 
tive theory  for  the  post-exilian  author- 
ship is  inconclusive. 

7.  The  ground  on  which  it  rests  is  not 
adequately  supported  by  the  facts. 

17 


8.  It  explains  other  cognate  facts  in 
an  unsatisfactory  manner. 

9.  It  fails  to  fit  Deuteronomy  into  the 
time  of  Josiah  and  Leviticus  into  the 
time  of  Ezra. 

10.  It  fails  to  explain  the  presence  of 
many  regulations  that  are  meaningless  on 
its  own  hypothesis. 

11.  It  fails  to  present  a  plausible  view 
of  the  personality  of  Moses. 

12.  It  contradicts  itself  in  explaining 
the  term  "Mosaic." 

13.  It  fails  to  explain  the  rise  of  the 
Prophets. 

14.  It  forces  the  words  of  the  Proph- 
ets, 

15.  It  assumes  that  the  Mosaic  Law 
was  smuggled  in  twice. 

16.  It  assumes  a  pious  fraud  on  the 
part  of  the  Old  Testament  writers. 

17.  The  negative  theory  is  essentially 
an  artificial  one. 

18.  It  is  essentially  and  wholly  rooted 
in  a  desire  to  deny  the  supernatural. 

19.  The  conclusions  of  the  negative 
theory  affect  the  authority  of  our  Lord's 
teaching. 

20.  The  negative  theory  throws  over- 
board all  external  and  traditional  evi- 
dence. 

21.  The  reasoning  of  the  negative  criti- 
cism is  not  freed  from  the  weakness  of 
its  own  mental  type. 

22.  The  whole  theory  is  in  all  its  as- 
sumptions, with  one  exception,  depend- 
ent entirely  upon  internal  evidence. 

23.  The  negative  theory  is  obliged  to 
introduce  a  large  number  of  reckless  in- 
ternal assumptions,  redactions  and  inter- 
polations. It  fails  to  show  why  the  re- 
dactors are  not  consistent  ,and  yet  it  re- 
jects Pentateuchal  legislation  on  the 
ground  of  inconsistencies. 

24.  The  negative  theory  forces  pas- 
sages to  make  them  agree  with  its  hy^ 
pothesis. 

25.  The  negative  theory  needlessly  as- 
sumes that  writings   are  non-authentic. 

26.  It  assumes  that  the  same  things 
will  not  happen  twice,  or  be  described 
over  again. 

27.  The  negative  theory  assumes  that 
a  writing  which  can  be  decomposed  into 
two  narratives  is  a  compilation. 


28.  The  negative  theory  assumes  that 
similarities  of  style  assure  identity  of 
authorship. 

29.  The  negative  theory  assumes  that 
dissimilarity  of  style  assures  different  au- 
thorship. 

30.  The  negative  theory  fails  to  note 
the  real  force  of  the  argument  from  gen- 
eral internal  consistency. 

31.  The  negative  theory  fails  to  note 
the  drift  of  the  argument  from  the  sub- 
ject, style,  thought,  construction  and 
words. 

32.  The  negative  theory  assumes  and 
permits  the  existence  of  writings  in  the 
age  of  Augustus  which  history  now  dis- 
proves. 

33.  The  Post-Exilic  theory  is  shown  to 
be  improbable,  by  the  discoveries  in 
Egyptology  and  Assyriology,  and  in  view 
of  the  scenes,  topography  and  characters 
of  the  Pentateuch. 

On  every  one  of  these  points  a  chapter 
of  facts  can  be  adduced  fatal  to  the  mod- 
ern theory  of  the  late  or  Post-Exilic  ori- 
gin of  the  Old  Testament. 

III.  The  Mediation  Criticism,  now  in 
vogue,  has  no  better  foundation  than  the 
Radical  Theory. 

Permit  me  to  draw  your  attention  to 
the  great  difference  between  the  two  sets 
of  men  who  are  advocating  the  critical 
theory  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  the 
one  class  are  those  who  attempt  to  pre- 
serve their  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God, 
while  holding  fast  their  radical  principles; 
and  in  the  other  are  those  who  throw  it 
away.  It  is  this  Mediation-Criticism  that 
is  far  more  dangerous  than  the  Radical 
Criticism,  and  which  has  now  control  of 
most  of  the  chairs  in  the  theological  insti- 
tutions in  the  United  States;  that  pro- 
duces a  majority  of  the  books  that  are  be- 
ing published  on  Biblical  scientific  sub- 
jects; and  that  is  prepared  to  introduce 
its  results  and  teachings  into  the  Sunday- 
school  and  to  inculcate  its  principles  from 
various  pedagogical  foundations. 

The  extent  of  the  mutilation  of  the 
Bible  is  something  that  one  can  scarcely 
realize.  The  theories  of  Wellhausen  and 
Kuenen  respecting  the  Pentateuch,  and 
the  more  recent  utterances  of  Frederick 
Delitzsch  attempting  to  account  for  Gen- 


esis and  the  other  books  of  the  Penta- 
teuch by  a  purely  Babylonian  origin,  are 
so  well  known  that  they  need  not  even 
be  alluded  to.  The  same  may  be  said 
of  the  critical  results  reached  by  German 
writers  and  by  such  American  critics  as 
Professors  Moore  and  Smith  with  re- 
gard to  the  period  of  the  Judges  and 
First  and  Second  Samuel,  while  the 
Books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  are  also 
being  made  a  very  centre  of  these  his- 
torical attacks.  The  Psalms,  it  is  well 
known,  have  been  brought  down  to  Post- 
Exilic  times  and  to  the  period  of  the 
Apocryphal  books,  by  many  German  wri- 
ters and  such  English  critics  as  Canon 
Cheyne.  All  the  Prophets,  with  a  few 
exceptions,   have  been  torn  to  shreds. 

In  the  New  Testament,  the  book  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  was  reduced  to 
fragments  by  Bauer  in  the  beginning  of 
the  Nineteenth  century,  and  after  being 
the  battlefield  of  German  critics  from 
that  time  to  the  present,  has  been  recent- 
ly mutilated  over  again  by  one  of  the 
theological  professors  in  this  country. 
Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke  have  been  re- 
duced to  a  merely  human  expansion  of 
the  "logia,"  and  the  gospel  of  John  has 
been  ruled  out  of  court  altogether.  Even 
those  Epistles  which  a  generation  ago 
were  supposed  to  be  unassailable  have 
been  reduced  by  later  New  Testament 
critics  to  a  mere  historical  composite. 
Perhaps  the  most  striking  recent  exam- 
ple is  the  attack  of  Professor  Smith  of 
Tulane  University,  in  a  late  number  of 
the  "American  Journal  of  Theology"  and 
the  "Hibbert  Journal,"  upon  the  genu- 
ineness and  authenticity  of  Romans.  In 
conclusion,  the  Book  of  Revelation — al- 
ways a  target — has  been  annihilated 
over  and  over  again,  and  by  schools  of 
criticism  whose  methods  are  diametric- 
ally opposed. 

In  consequence  of  these  destructive  re- 
sults of  purely  negative  criticism,  we 
have  hardly  anything  left  in  the  Bible 
beyond  some  remnants  of  history  and 
poetry,  some  codes  of  law  and  rules  of 
conduct,  some  visions  of  the  seer,  some 
very  lofty  insights  of  the  human  soul; 
the  whole  of  Revelation  (as  a  specifically 
divine   thing,  not  to  be  compared  with 


18 


other  great  works  of  the  human  intel- 
IcQt)  and  the  whole  of  the  teachings  of 
the  Atonement  and  Redemption  have 
disappeared. 

IV.  And  now  permit  me  to  say  in 
conclusion  that  all  the  forms  of  this  Ra- 
tionalistic Criticism  proceed  upon  certain 
unnatural  and  untenable  postulates. 

In  opposition  to  these  may  be  pre- 
sented certain  rational  and  correct  prin- 
ples  that  should  be  grasped  and  applied: 

1.  We  should  not  expect  inspiration  to 
be  susceptible  of  mathematical  proof,  for 
two  reasons: 

(i)  It  is  not  God's  way  of  conveying 
any  organic  or  vital  truth  to  us,  to  make 
it  capable  of  mathematical  proof. 

(2)  Such  proof  would  force  a  mechani- 
cal intellectual  assent  from  all  men,  the 
very  opposite  of  the  voluntary  spiritual 
assent  God  is  aiming  at. 

2.  We  should  not  expect  inspired 
knowledge  to  be  less  difficult  and  compli- 
cated in  its  proof  than  ordinary  knowl- 
edge, for  the  themes  it  handles  are  vast- 
er. Very  little  of  even  the  best-estab- 
lished of  ordinary  knowledge  is  suscepti- 
ble of  exact  demonstration. 

3.  We  should  not  expect  the  problem 
of  knowledge  in  inspiration  to  be  less 
difficult  than  the  fundamental  philosophi- 
cal problem  of  knowledge  which  is  the 
sphinx  of  the  human  intellect,  and  which 
has  been  only  partly  grasped,  and  never 
yet  solved.  Plato,  Aristotle,  Anselm, 
Berkeley,  Hume,  Locke,  Spinoza,  Kant, 
Schelling,  Hegel  and  Spencer  have  la- 
bored upon  it,  but  none  of  them  has 
found  the  golden  key.  Should  we  expect 
the  intellectual  paradox  to  be  absent  in 
the  problem  of  our  recorded  inspired 
knowledge? 

4.  In  any  case  of  difficult  fact  to  be  de- 
cided in  the  courts  we  should  not  ex- 
pect conflicting  details  to  be  absent  in  the 
evidence, — not  even  from  the  expert  tes- 
timony; and  paradoxes  and  mysteries 
naturally  abound  in  inspired  testimony. 
Our  Lord's  own  utterances  and  testimony 
under  questioning  have  this  mystical, 
paradoxical  character.  Should  we  then 
expect  the  absence  of  all  apparently  con- 
flicting testimony,  and  deviation  from  the 
ordinary  principles  of  evidence  in  a  re- 


corded plan  of  God,  so  comprehensive 
that  it  embraces  many  ages  and  stages  of 
knowledge  and  culture  vast  in  them- 
selves? Is  this  not  in  itself  one  main 
proof  that  the  testimony  of  Scripture  has 
not  been  manufactured,  this  fact  that 
difficulties  bristle  in  it,  as  they  always  do 
in  true  evidence  in  the  courts;  and  that 
they  are  not  ruled  out  of  the  Scriptural 
record,  as  they  are  not  ruled  out  of  the 
record  of  the  courts? 

5.  Because  a  lawyer  can  not  resolve  all 
the  contradictions  in  his  evidence,  does 
the  jury  therefore  believe  it  to  be  false? 
Because  the  judge  can  not  resolve  the 
paradox  in  two  conflicting  statements  of 
principle,  and  can  not  force  them  into  ab- 
solute harmony,  does  he  therefore  declare 
them  errant  or  declare  them  untrue? 

That  must  be  a  marvelously  penetrat- 
ing intellect  and  a  judicial  insight  of  in- 
finite intuition  which  would  dare  to  go 
back  through  the  ages,  and,  on  the  basis 
of  such  slender  threads  of  induction  as 
modern  critics  can  gather  (such  as 
Bauer  and  others  on  the  New  Testament), 
resolve  the  paradoxes,  harmonize  the  de- 
tails, and  declare  true  or  untrue  the  ap- 
parently conflicting  elements  in  records 
whose  documentary  methods  are  un- 
known to  us,  except  from  internal  or 
speculative  data.  The  themes  with  which 
these  records  deal  profess  to  be  the  Word 
of  the  Most  High  to  man  in  all  the  var- 
ied stages  of  the  latter's  thought  and 
life,  and  the  topics  treated  embrace  the 
beginnings  of  the  universe,  the  end  of 
worlds,  the  Person  of  an  Infinite  Being, 
the  salvation  of  the  world,  the  opera- 
tions of  an  Incomprehensible  Spirit,  and 
the  mysteries  of  an  inconceivable  eter- 
nity. Shall  rude  fingers  of  human  clay 
dare  to  handle  these  things  recklessly  or 
irreverently?  • 

If  the  evidences  of  Christianity  on 
these  high  themes  be  deemed  trivial  and 
trifling,  surely  the  evidences  that  are 
marshaled  against  the  records  from  As- 
syrian or  Israelitish  sources,  by  the  men 
who  dissect  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, are  singularly  inconclusive  and  trifling. 


The   session   closed   with   prayer   and 
the  benediction. 


19 


WEDNESDAY    MORNING    SESSION,     MAY    4 

10  A.  M.    President  William  Phillips  Hall  in  the  Chair 
OPENING    DEVOTIONAL    EXERCISES 


Dr.  Burrell:  Let  us  begin  our  service 
by  singing  No.  82 : 

"A   glory   gilds   the  sacred  .page." 

Dr.  Burrell:  Now  we  will  turn  to  Psalm 
cxix.,  Aleph  and  Beth,  and  read  responsive- 

ly. 

Prayer  by  Dr.  Burrell:  O  God,  we 
thank  Thee  that,  sitting  high  in  the 
heavens,  Thou  dost  still  condescend  to 
be  with  us;  and  we  thank  Thee  that 
Thou  hast  not  hid  Thyself  in  Thy  throne 
room  with  guards  about  Thy  doors;  but 
Thou  hast  been  pleased  to  bow  the  hea- 
vens and  come  down  to  reveal  Thyself. 
We  thank  Thee  for  this,  which  is  writ- 
ten, "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word, 
and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the 
Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among 
us."  We  thank  Thee  that  Thy  Word  was 
articulated  in  the  incarnation  so  that  we 
have  Thy  very  speech  in  Jesus  Christ;  and, 
oh,  blessed  be  Thy  name  that,  in  addition 
to  Jesus,  Thine  Only-begotten  Son,  Who 
was  here  only  a  brief  lifetime  and  in  a  re- 
mote corner  of  the  earth.  Thou  has  given 
us  a  complete  Word  vi^hich  was  written 
by  holy  men,  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
in  which  this  incarnate  Word  is  perpetual- 
ized  and  universalized  so  that  all  the  ends 
of  the  earth  know  about  Him.  We  bless 
Thee  for  the  Bible.  We  bless  Thee  for 
Christ  who  speaks  in  the  Bible,  and  we 
rejoice,  O  God,  that  we  have  such  a 
perfect  and  sweet  confidence  in  this  rev- 
elation of  Thyself  in  Thy  Word.  We 
bless  Thee  for  Christ,  we  bless  Thee  for 
the  Bible !  and  we  pray  for  those  to  whom 
the  truth  of  Thine  entire  Word  is  not 
clear.  The  Lord  grant  that  Jesus  Christ 
may  seem  to  those  whom  He  came  to 
save,  not  as  a  Root  out  of  a  dry  ground, 
but  as  Thy  Fulness  in  the  Flesh.  Oh,  we 
pray  for  those  to  whom  Thy  written  Word 
is  not  clear,  who  are  not  sure  whether  it  is 
true  or  not.  Do  Thou  help  them,  we  pray 
Thee,  to  search  a  little  more  deeply,  and 
with  all  deference  to  the  fact  that  God 
knows  more  than  they  do,  until  it  shall  be 
as  when  Thou  didst  speak  out  of  Heaven 
concerning  Thy  Son.     Say  Thou  to  these 


waiting,  questioning,  doubting  ones,  as 
Thou  didst  of  the  Christ,  "This  is  My 
Beloved  Son,  hear  ye  Him."  And,  O 
God,  is  this  asking  too  much  of  Thee, 
that  Thou  wouldst  speak  to  us  through 
Thy  Word,  to  every  heart  and  con- 
science, that  we  may  understand  what  it 
says,  and  that  we  may  respond  to  it? 
Hear  us,  O  Lord,  and  bless  us  and 
all  in  this  fellowship  throughout  the  world. 
We  thank  Thee,  that,  though  in  this 
controversy,  we  are  still  at  the  eye  of 
the  storm, — there  is  a  perfect  calm  there, 
because  we  are  with  Thee.  We  thank 
Thee  that  Thy  Church  stands  through 
all  the  ages.  O  God,  grant  that  the 
Church  may  be  ,  more  and  more  loyal 
to  all  the  landmarks  of  truth,  and  that 
Thy  people  who  stand  beneath  these 
Heavens  may  hear  Thy  voice,  and  may 
none  ever  say,  "Behold  it  thundereth." 
We  ask  it  in  Jesus'  name.     Amen. 


President  Hall:  In  opening  this  second 
session  of  the  Convention  of  The  Ameri- 
can Bible  League,  I  would  like  to  an- 
nounce that  various  forms  of  literature 
in  line  with  the  purposes  of  the  League 
are  to  be  found  on  the  table  out  yonder^ 
in  the  vestibule;  copies  of  "The  Bible 
Student  and  Teacher,"  little  slips  giving 
an  account  of  the  inception  and  organiza- 
tion of  the  League  and  its  plans  and 
purposes,  and  also  an  advertisement  from 
Revell  &  Co.,  of  Sir  Robert  Anderson's 
latest  work  on  the  "Pseudo-Criticism," 
and  various  other  publications  that  we  are 
pleased  to  recommend  for  the  reading 
and  thoughtful  consideration  of  all  those 
who  are  seeking  light  on  this  great  sub- 
ject. 

It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  introduce 
this  morning  the  last  speaker  anounced 
for  last  evening's  meeting,  who,  owing 
to  the  lateness  of  the  hour,  was  prevent- 
ed from  delivering  the  message  unto  us 
that  I  believe  God  has  given  him.  It 
gives  me  very  great  pleasure  to  intro- 
duce Rev.  Dr.  S.  L.  Bowman,  S.T.D.,  of 
Newark,  N.  J.,  the  well  known  lecturer, 


formerly  head  of  the  Theological  Depart- 
ment of  De  Pauw  University,  a  leading 
theologian  and  diligent  student  and  ex- 


positor of  the  teachings  of  the  Master, 
the  Word  of  God.  Professor  Bowman 
will  now  address  us. 


ADDRESS    OF     REV.     S.     L.     BOWMAN,     S.T.D. 
"Attack  upon  the  Mosaic  Authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  " 


In  Biblical  Criticism  there  are  Critics 
and  Critics.  These  constitute  two  differ- 
ent and  antagonistic  Schools.  The  Ra- 
tionalistic School  propose  to  subject  the 
Holy  Scriptures  to  their  own  scrutiny 
and  judgment  as  an  appeal  to  reason,  re- 
jecting all  that  they  cannot  understand, 
which  means  all  that  is  Supernatural; 
overlooking  the  indispensable  fact  that 
"the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they  are  foolish- 
ness unto  him;  neither  can  he  know 
them,  because  they  are  spiritually  dis- 
cerned." Truly,  as  a  skeptical  philosoph- 
er (Schelling)  remarks:  "Nothing  is 
more  doleful  than  the  occupation  of  all 
rationalists  who  strive  to  make  that  ra- 
tional which  declares  itself  above  rea- 
son." 

The  Scriptures  appeal  to  man's  spir- 
itual nature  and  point  to  his  spiritual 
interests;  accordingly  he  must  have  the 
spiritual  preparation  of  mind  to  realize 
and  appreciate  these  provisions.  Now, 
the  School  of  Loyal  Faith,  while  by  no 
means  ignoring  the  just  rights  of  reason 
in  its  legitimate  exercise,  holds  that  the 
Word  of  God  is  His  Revelation  ad- 
dressed to  human  reason,  and  yet  that 
in  so  far  as  it  reveals,  it  is  something 
above  reason.  The  rationalists  of  the 
Destructive  School — whatever  may  be 
said  of  their  judgment  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  they  reach  conclusions  which  are 
remarkably  antagonistic  to  one  another 
— make  loud  claims  of  possessing  a  mon- 
opoly of  the  scholarship  of  the  twentieth 
century.  And  they  have  long  had  their 
say,  that  they  might  complete  their  work. 
But  now  the  field  is  open  for  the  oppos- 
ing School  to  be  heard  in  reply,  and  its 
ability  and  scholarship  will  be  made  suf- 
ficiently obvious  in  the  destruction  of 
their  skeptical  postulates,  of  which  pos- 
terity will  form  a  just  judgment.  An  in- 
destructible conviction  abides  in  the  as- 
surance of  Isaiah  (xxviii.  i6)  :  "Thus  saith 


the  Lord  God,  Behold  I  lay  in  Zion  for 
a  Foundation,  ...  a  tried  stone  ...  a 
sure  Foundation;  he  that  believeth  shall 
not  make  haste." 

I  propose  to  restrict  my  remarks  to 
the  Pentateuch  and  its  disputed  author- 
ship, as  related  to  the  Historic  Moses, 
as  constantly  voiced  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

I  apprehend  that  I  shall  not  render 
myself  liable  to  the  charge  of  arguing 
"in  a  vicious  circle"  in  violation  of  the 
principles  of  logic,  in  that  I  shall  cite 
the  authorities  of  the  New  Testament  to 
prove  the  facts  of  the  Old.  For  we  are 
not  at  liberty  to  regard  the  Bible  as  one 
single  Book,  as  respects  human  author- 
ship and  authority.  Nothing  could  be 
more  obvious  and  evident  than  that  it  is 
a  Collection  of  Sacred  Writings,  em- 
bracing sixty-six  books  in  number,  writ- 
ten by  different  men,  living  in  different 
countries,  in  different  centuries,  ex- 
pressed in  different  languages;  yet  when 
brought  together  into  combination,  found 
to  constitute  a  marvelous  unity  in  plan 
and  design,  as  a  Revelation  exactly 
adapted  to  the  condition  of  universal 
mankind.  And  it  should  be  carefully  re- 
marked that  the  Scrolls  of  the  Penta- 
teuch in  the  Synagogue  were  not  at  all 
divided  into  distinct  books  known  as 
Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers 
and  Deuteronomy,  as  we  have  them  now 
in  print.  These  several  titles  were  an 
afterthought  intended  merely  to  be  des- 
criptive of  the  special  subject-matter  con- 
tained in  each;  so  were  the  arrangements 
into  the  several  chapters  and  verses.  The 
Jews  themselves  designated  the  Penta- 
teuch nt^  nnin  i.  e.  the  Law  of  Moses; 
and  their  Rabbis  styled  it  "the  five-fifths 
of  the  Law." 

Critical  Argument  from  the  Names  of 
God. 

One  principal  objection  alleged  against 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch 


is  the  use  made  of  two  different  names 
attributed  to  God,  supposed  to  justify 
the  inference  that  there  were  at  least 
two,  or  even  many,  authors  involved  in 
writing  earlier  documents  which  then 
were  reconstructed  into  one,  which  is 
our  Scriptures. 

The  first  Name  ascribed  to  God  in  the 
first  verse  is  Elohim,  which  is  derived 
from  the  word  El,  meaning  power.  That 
is,  the  supreme  Person  reveals  and  iden- 
tifies Himself  before  man,  by  His  crea- 
tion of  the  material  Universe.  To  sen- 
tient natures  nothing  is  so  impressive  as 
the  idea  and  exercise  of  power;  and  no- 
thing is  so  powerfully  impressive  as  a 
God  of  Power  thus  revealing  Himself  to 
primeval  man  as  pictured  in  the  won- 
drous Creation.  Then  in  the  second  Chap- 
ter we  find  another  Name  for  the  God  of 
power;  the  Name  Jehovah,  which  again 
is  derived  from  Havah  (  nin  )  which 
means  to  be,  to  breathe— this  is,  the 
self-existent,  immutable  One.  Hosea 
says,  "Jehovah  is  His  Name"  (xii.  6). 
Why  is  this  new  Name  then  introduced? 
Because  living,  breathing  creatures  are 
here  mentioned  as  now  brought  into  ex- 
istence, in  distinction  from  the  material 
Universe;  and  if  Yahveh  be  the  restora- 
tion of  the  lost  pronunciation  of  Jeho- 
vah, the  very  form  of  the  Name  is  under- 
stood as  revealing  God  as  the  Cause  of 
the  existence  of  His  creatures.  This  is 
progress  even  in  His  revealing  Names 
to  man:  (i)  the  Divine  Personality  of 
power,  as  Creator  of  the  material  Uni- 
verse; (2)  as  Jehovah  the  self-e.astent 
First  Cause  of  living  Creatures;  (3)  and 
finally  the  two  Names  used  conjointly  to 
identify  Him  as  the  One  eternal  God  of 
power  and  life.  As  a  process  of  revela- 
tion to  the  understanding  of  Adam  of 
the  mutual  relation  between  God  and 
Man — the  Creator  and  the  Creature — 
could  anything  be  happier? 

Yet  Astruc,  a  Roman  Catholic  physi- 
cian ^.o  Lcuis  XIV.  of  France,  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  his  followers 
ever  since,  have  not  been  able  to  see  in 
these  Scriptural  Names  what  Adam  saw 
and  understood  from  the  first,  t-iat  this 
God  of  creative  power  had  constructed 
man  into  a  being,   and  constituted   him 


into  His  own  very  image  and  likeness, 
when  "the  Lord  God  [Jehovah-Elohim] 
formed  man  out  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils 
[D"n  DDl^J  Nishmath  Khayyim,]  not 
"the  breath  of  life,"  but  plural,  the 
breath  of  lives — animal  life,  which  alone 
would  leave  man  a  m6re  brute,  intellect- 
ual life  which  placed  him  out  of  the  brute 
category  in  intelligence,  and  spiritual 
life  which  made  him  Godlike;  "and  man 
became  a  living  soul"  (ii.  7).  These  des- 
tructive critics  can  discover  only  the 
merest  indication — certainly  not  any  con- 
clusive proof — that  the  Pentateuch  must 
have  been  originally  written,  as  they  sur- 
mise, by  different  writers,  who  used  these 
two  names  distinctively  in  prior  docu- 
ments, which  afterwards  some  unknown 
and  unnamed  Redactor  took  in  hand  to 
edit,  and  so  doctored  the  scriptural  state- 
ment, working  it  up  into  a  oneness,  plac- 
ing the  two  names  together  as  they  now 
appear  in  Genesis. 

Do  such  speculative  guesses  really  re- 
quire serious  refutation?  I  once  knew 
a  young  minister  who  for  some  reason 
best  known  to  himself  wrote  in  his  first 
sermons,  "Jesus,"  "Jesus,"  "Jesus";  later 
on  he  changed  his  mind  and  wrote 
Christ,  Christ,  Christ,  and  finally  he  con- 
cluded to  write  the  two  names  together, 
Jesus  Christ.  Now,  employing  the  very 
same  canon  of  criticism  used  by  the  Des- 
tructive Critics,  these  sermons  must  have 
been  written  by  at  least  two  different  au- 
thors; and  the  two  names  brought  to- 
gether by  some  redactor.  I  knew  that 
young  man  about  as  well  as  I  ever  knew 
any  one,  and  I  feel  entirely  safe  in  say- 
ing that  I  know  better;  for  I  was  myself 
that  young  minister!  The  circumstance 
is  without  significance,  except  to  illus- 
trate how  thoroughly  superficial  and  un- 
warrantable are  such  conjectures  as  are 
applied  to  these  Scriptures.  Fairness  in 
criticism  demands  that  the  same  canon 
which  is  applied  to  secular  and  unsacred 
writings,  shall  be  applied  to  the  Scrip- 
tures. Remember  that  no  adverse  critic 
has  been  able  to  tell  us  who  the  Elohis- 
tic  and  who  the  Jehovistic  writers  were 
who  antedated  Moses;  and  who  the  re- 
dactor was  of  whom  they  claim  to  know 


so  much.  And  what  is  fatal  to  their  re- 
corded conclusions  is  the  fact  that  these 
adverse  critics  disagree  and  quite  antag- 
onize each  others'  opinions.  Well,  I  for 
one  am  not  yet  prepared  to  surrender 
what  has  been  constantly  regarded  for 
three  thousand  years  as  a  statement  of 
historical  fact,  for  mere  conjectural  fic- 
tion. 

The  Argument  from  the  New  Testament. 

Now  glance  at  the  evidence  furnished 
by  the  authority  of  the  Evangelists, 
Apostles,  and  even  by  Jesus  Christ  Him- 
self, in  the  recognition  and  application  to 
the  Mosaic  authority  and  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch. 

Believers  at  least  will  realize  repose  of 
conviction  and  faith  upon  noting  that  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  and  also 
our  Savior,  constantly  and  without  var- 
iation or  contradiction  ascribe  to  Moses 
under  God  the  authorship  of  these  writ- 
ings. 

That  he  had  all  the  literary  acquire- 
ments and  qualifications  for  the  work, 
was  attested  by  Stephen  in  his  last  mo- 
ments when   he  said: 

"Moses  was  learned  in  all  the  wisdom 
of  the  Egyptians  and  was  mighty  in 
words  and  deeds"  (Acts  vii.  22). 

Moreover  his  integrity  is  vouched  for 
by  the  author  of  Hebrews  (iii.  5): 

"Moses  indeed  was  faithful  in  all  his 
house  as  a  servant  [of  the  Lord],  for  a 
testimony  of  those  things  which  were 
afterward  to  be  spoken." 

Then  the  Apostle  Peter  affirms  and 
confirms  (Acts  iii.  22)  the  choice  of  Mo- 
ses as  the  human  type  and  representative 
of  the  coming  Christ  announced  in  Deut. 
(xviii.  18,  19): 

"And  Jehovah  said  unto  me  ...  I  will 
raise  up  a  Prophet  from  among  thy 
brethren,  like  unto  thee;  and  I  will  put 
My  words  in  His  mouth;  and  He  shall 
speak  unto  them  all  that  I  shall  com- 
mand Him." 

This  assured  belief  of  the  Jews  in  the 
time  of  Christ  is  a  fact  beyond  question 
or  recall,  as  applied  alone  to  the  Historic 
Moses,  for,  when  Jesus  opened  the  eyes 
of  the  blind-born  on  the  Sabbath,  the 
Pharisees  reviled  both  him  and  the 
Christ,  saying: 


"Thou  art  His  disciples,  but  we  are 
Moses'  disciples.  We  know  that  God 
spake  unto  Moses;  as  for  this  fellow,  we 
know  not  whence  He  is"  (John  ix. 
28,  29). 

To  the  refractory  Jews  respecting  their 
steadfast  faith  in  the  Moses  of  Scripture, 
Jesus  Himself  said: 

"Do  not  think  that  I  will  accuse  you 
to  the  Father;  there  is  one  who  accuscth 
you,  Moses  in  whom  ye  trust.  For  had 
ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  be- 
lieved Me,  for  [mark  the  singular  pro- 
nouns] he  wrote  of  Me.  But  if  ye  believe 
not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe 
My  words?"  (John  v.  45-47). 

So  Moses  alone  is  recognized  as  the 
prophet  of  Christ  in  the  Pentateuch,  and 
"his  writings"  are  those  which  our  Lord 
indorsed,  which  are  no  others  than  those 
which  we  have  now. 

John  Chrysostom,  the  "golden-mouth 
orator  of  the  fourth  century,"  remarked: 

"Moses  did  not  put  his  name  to  the 
Five  Books;  nor  did  the  historians  who 
wrote  after  him  prefix  their  names  to 
their  writings;  but  the  blessed  Paul  ev- 
erywhere prefixes  his  name  to  his  Epis- 
tles— excepting  to  that  of  Hebrews, 
where  he  had  reason  to  be  on  his  re- 
serve. Why  is  this  [distinction]?  [Be- 
cause] they  [the  evangelists]  delivered 
their  writings  to  those  who  were  present 
when  it  was  needless  to  put  down  the 
name.  He  [i.  e.  Paul]  sent  his  writings 
to  those  at  a  distance,  in  the  form  of  an 
Epistle,  where  the  addition  of  a  name 
was  necessary"  ("Homily  on  Romans," 
B.  9). 

I.. Test  the  Book  of  GENESIS. 

(i)  In  John's  Gospel  (i.  45)  it  is  re- 
lated how  that 

"Philip  findeth  Nathaniel  and  saith 
unto  him:  We  have  found  Him  of  whom 
Moses  in  the  Law,  and  the  Prophets  did 
write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth." 

The  authenticative  references  stand 
verified  in  Gen.  iii.  15;  xxii.  18;  xxvi.  4, 
etc. 

(2)  John  again  states  (i.  17): 

"For  the  Law  was  given  by  Moses, 
[but]  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus 
Christ." 

In  viii.  19,  22,  Jesus  addresses  the  Jews: 

"Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  Law? 
Moses  hath  given  you  circumcision,  not 
that  it  is  of  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers.  .  . 
If  a  man  receive  circumcision  on  the  Sab- 


23 


bath,  that  the  Law  of  Moses  may  not  be 
broken,  are  ye  wroth  with  Me  because 
I  made  a  man  every  whit  whole  on  the 
Sabbath?" 

This  Mosaic  Law  of  circumcision  was 
originally  ordained  by  Jehovah  unto 
Abraham,  the  progenitor  of  the  Jewish 
race,  and  is  recorded  in  Gen.  xvii.  lo,  ii: 

"This  is  My  Covenant  which  ye  shall 
keep  between  Me  and  you  and  thy  seed 
after  thee.  .  .  It  shall  be  for  a  token  of 
the  Covenant  between  Me  and  you." 

(3)  The  first  three  Gospels  (Matt.  xix. 
4;  Mk.  X.  5;  Lk.  xvi.  18)  record  that  the 
Pharisees  once  approached  Jesus  on  the 
subject  of  divorce,  saying: 

"Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his 
wife  for  every  cause?  Jesus  replied: 
What  did  Moses  command  you?  And 
they  said,  Moses  suffered  to  write  a  bill 
of  divorcement  and  to  put  her  away.  Je- 
sus answered:  For  the  hardness  of  your 
hearts  he  wrote  you  this  precept.  But 
from  the  beginning  of  the  creation,  God 
made  them  male  and  female." 

The  identification  of  the  Mosaic  au- 
thorship, and  the  verification  of  the  ref- 
erence to  Genesis,  can  be  found  in  Gen. 
ii.  24;  V.  2,  and  also  in  Deut.  xxiv.  1-4. 

II.. Test  the  Book  of  EXODUS. 

(i)  The  Apostle  John  represents  Jesus 
as  saying: 

"Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  Law?" 
The  verification  is  in  Ex.  xx.  24,  and  in 
Deut.  xxx.  4.    In  Ex.  xxxiv.  3,  4,  we  read: 

"And  Moses  came  and  told  all  the 
words  of  Jehovah.  .  .  and  wrote  all  the 
words  of  Jehovah." 

In  Deut.  xxxiii.  3,  4,  we  read: 

[Every  one]  "shall  receive  thy  words. 
Moses  commanded  us  a  Law,  even  the 
inheritance  for  the  assembly  of  Jacob." 

(2)  In  Matt.  XV.  4,  and  Mk.  vii.  10,  we 
read:  "For  Moses  said.  Honor  thy  father 
and  thy  mother;"  which  is  authorized  and 
verified  in  both  Ex.  xx.  12,  and  in  Deut. 
V.   16. 

(3)  Paul,  in  2  Tim.  iii.  8,  makes  dis- 
tinct reference  to  the  names  of  those 
Sorcerers  and  Magicians  who  by  their 
arts  undertook  to  oppose  Moses  when  he 
wrought  miracles  before  Pharaoh  for  the 
deliverance  of  Israel — the  only  place  in 
the  Scriptures  where  their  names  are 
mentioned: 


"Even  as  Jannes  and  Jambres  with- 
stood Moses,  so  do  these  also  resist  the 
truth;  men  of  corrupt  minds,  reprobates 
concerning  the  faith." 

Verified  in  Ex.  vii.  11. 

(4)  In  Hebrews  viii.  5,  we  have: 

"A  copy  and  shadow  of  heavenly 
things,  even  as  Moses  is  warned  of  God 
when  he  is  about  to  make  a  tabernacle; 
for  saith  He,  'See  that  thou  make  all 
things  according  to  the  pattern  that  was 
showed  thee  in  the  mount'." 

And  in  Ex.  xxv.  40,  it  reads: 

"See  that  thou  make  them  after  the 
pattern  which  hath  been  shown  thee  in 
the  mount." 

And  again  in  Numbers  viii.  4: 

"According  to  the  pattern  which  Je- 
hovah had  shown  Moses;  so  made  he  the 
candlestick." 

(5)  When  Paul  stood  alone  before  the 
Jewish  Sanhedrin,  pleading  that  he  had 
lived  in  all  good  conscience  until  that 
day,  Ananias,  who  had  usurped  the  high 
priesthood  in  the  absence  of  the  Roman 
procurator,  commanded  that  the  Apostle 
be  smitten  on  the  mouth  with  the  iron 
heel  of  a  shoe. 

"Then  Paul  said  unto  him  [Ananias], 
God  shall  smite  thee,  thou  whited  wall, 
for  sittest  thou  to  judge  me  according  to 
the  Law,  and  commandest  me  to  be  smit- 
ten contrary  to  the  Law!  and  they  that 
stood  by,  said,  Revilest  thou  God's  high 
priest?  And  Paul  said,  I  knew  not,  breth- 
ren, that  he  was  high  priest;  for  it  is 
written.  Thou  shalt  not  speak  evil  of  the 
ruler  of  thy  people."  This  is  verified  in 
Ex.  xxii.  28,  which  reads:  "Thou  shalt 
not.  .  .  .curse  the  ruler  of  thy  people." 
(Conip.  XX.  20-22,  etc.) 

III.    Test  the  Book  of  LEVITICUS. 

Jesus  having  concluded  His  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  descended  to  the  plain  and 
cured  a  leper  of  his  malady,  saying: 

"Go  show  thyself  to  the  priest,  and 
offer  the  gift  that  Moses  commanded  for 
a  testimony  unto  them"  (Matt.  viii.  4, 
confirmed  by  Mk.  i.  44). 

And  in  Lev.  xiv.  we  find  the  ample  au- 
thentication and  provision  for  the  priest- 
ly inspection  of  such  case,  and  the  offer- 
ing to  be  made  by  the  cured,  where  it 
is  expressly  stated  that  the  Lord  spake 
unto  Moses  (ver.  i)  these  directions. 


24 


IV.    Test  the  Book  of  NUMBERS. 

In  the  fourth  Gospel  (iii.  14),  it  is  rep- 
resented that  Jesus  said  unto  Nicodemus: 

"As  Moses  lifted  up  the  Serpent  in  the 
wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  Man 
be  lifted  up,  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
Him,  may  have  eternal  life." 

In  Numb.  xxi.  7-9,  we  find  the  identical 
historic  occasion,  and  a  description  of 
the  event  given  in  detail: 

"And  Moses  prayed  for  the  people. 
And  Jehovah  said  unto  Moses,  Make 
unto  thee  a  fiery  serpent  and  set  it  upon 
a  standard;  and  it  shall  come  to  pass, 
that  every  one  that  is  bitten,  when  he 
seeth  it  shall  live." 

V.  Test  the  Book  of  DEUTERONOMY. 

(i)  In  2  Cor.  xiii.  i,  the  Apostle  Paul 
says: 

"At  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses  or 
three  shall  every  word  be  established." 

Our  Lord  according  to  Matthew  (xviii. 
15,   16)   said: 

"If  thy  brother  sin  against  thee,  go 
show  him  his  fault  between  thee  and  him 
alone.  .  .  .if  he  hear  thee  not,  take  with 
thee  one  or  two  witnesses,  that  at  the 
mouth  of  two  witnesses  or  three,  every 
word  may  be  established." 

The  warrant  for  these  two  references 
and  citations  is  found  in  Deut.  xvii.  6; 
xix.  15:    The  Lord  said  unto  Moses: 

"One  witness  shall  not  rise  up  against 
a  man  for  any  iniquity.  .  .  .at  the  mouth 
of  two  witnesses,  or  at  the  mouth  of 
three  witnesses,  shall  the  matter  be  es- 
tablished." 

(2)  The  Sadducces  said  unto  our  Lord: 

"Moses  said.  If  a  man  die  having  no 
children,  his  brother  shall  marry  his  wife 
and  raise  up  seed  unto  his  brother" 
(Matt.  xxii.  24;  Mk.  xx.   19;  Lk.  xx.  28). 

This  arrangement  is  provided  for  in 
Deut.  xxv.  5.     (Comp.  Gen.  xxxviii.  8). 

(3)  On  the  afternoon  of  our  Lord's 
rising,  while  journeying  toward  Em- 
maus,  which  was  about  seven  and  a  half 
miles  from  Jerusalem,  Jesus  opened  the 
understanding  of  the  two  disciple  com- 
panions: 

"Beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  Proph- 
ets, He  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the 
Scriptures,  the  things  concerning  Him- 
self. .  .  .These  are  My  words  which  I 
spake  unto  you  while  I  was  yet  with  you, 
that  all   things  must  needs  be   fulfilled, 


which  were  written  in  the  Law  of  Moses, 
and  in  the  Prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms 
concerning  Me"  (Lk.  xxiv.  27,  44). 

Biblical  scholars  understand  how  that 
Jesus  here  refers  to  the  three  grand  di- 
visions of  the  Old  Testament  supposed 
to  have  been  arranged  by  Ezra  and  his 
coadjutors  upon  his  return  from  the 
exile;  and  not  only  the  Pentateuch,  but 
each  division  of  those  Scriptures  abso- 
lutely bore  witness  to  the  closing  events 
of  Christ's  life  as  then  cited  by  Himself 
— first  of  all,  Moses  is  mentioned  as  an- 
other name  for  the  Pentateuch,  then  the 
Prophets  as  such  second  division,  and 
last  of  all,  the  book  of  Psalms,  which 
stood  the  first,  for  all  the  other  books  in- 
cluded in  the  third  and  miscellaneous 
division  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
time  of  Christ. 

Moses  recorded  the  very  first  predic- 
tive statement  respecting  the  Seed  of  the 
woman  (Gen.  iii.  15).  This  however  con- 
veyed merely  the  promised  Fact  of  the 
Messianic  Redeemer.  Who  He  would 
be,  what  His  character,  through  whom 
He  should  come,  and  when  He  should 
appear,  no  one  could  know.  It  was  not 
until  the  time  of  Abraham  that  it  was 
revealed  from  what  Nation  Messiah 
should  spring  (Gen.  xxii.  18);  or  until 
the  time  of  Jacob  that  people  could  know 
of  what  Tribe  (xlix.  8) ;  or  until  the  time 
of  David  that  they  learned  of  what 
Family  (Psa.  Ixxxix.  3);  or  until  the  time 
of  Isaiah  that  they  knew  that  H'e  would 
be  born  of  a  Virgin  (Isa.  vii.  14);  or  until 
the  time  of  Micah  that  they  knew  of 
what  place  (v.  2) ;  or  until  the  angel  Ga- 
briel appeared  and  hailed  Mary  as  the 
Person,  as  "highly  favored  of  the  Lord," 
the  one  "blessed  among  women"  (Matt, 
i.  20-23;  Lu.  i.  26-28).  Here  is  progressive 
Revelation,  constant  and  undeviating, 
brought  forward  just  as  fast  as  the  ap- 
prehension and  appreciation  of  men 
could  receive  the  knowledge  of  the  mag- 
nificent movement  of  God  in  His  under- 
taking the  Redemption  of  the  world. 

Here  are  twenty  or  more  express  refer- 
ences found  in  the  New  Testament  wri- 
ters, including  many  sayings  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  all  identifying  Moses  as  the  author 
of  the  Pentateuch,  attested  in  every  one 


25 


of  the  five  books  included.  Many  more 
of  indirect  allusions  could  be  adduced  in 
further  proof  of  the  Mosaic  authorship. 
We  are  now  left  to  our  own  choice,  whe- 
ther to  accept  the  witness  of  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  John,  Stephen,  Peter,  Paul, 
the  writer  of  Hebrews,  and  above  all,  the 
authority  of  Jesus  Christ  Himself,  as  to 
the  authorship  of  the  Five  Books,  against 
the  speculative  opinions,  conceits,  wild 
conjectures,  and  sheer  assumptions  of  the 


Destructive  Critics,  who  deny  the  time- 
honored  authorship  of  the  Historic  Mo- 
ses. 

Where  is  the  man  who  is  willing  to 
stand  up  before  all  Christendom  and  in- 
sist that  neither  our  Lord  Himself  nor 
His  Apostles  knew  what  they  were  talk- 
ing about,  or  did  not  mean  what  they 
said,  when  they  so  repeatedly  and  em- 
phatically ascribed  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  to  the  Historic  Moses? 


Second  <5eneral  ^opic 


PRACTICAL    CONSEQUENCES    OF    THE    ATTACK    ON     THE 

BIBLE" 


President  Hall:  After  listening  to  the 
instructive  and  interesting  address  of  Dr. 
Bowman,  necessarily  left  over  from  last 
evening,  we  now  proceed  to  take  up  the 
regular  topic  of  this  morning:  "Practical 
Consequences  of  the  Attack  on  the  Bi- 
ble." Men  of  large  experience,  who  have 
had  peculiar  advantages  for  observing 
the  practical  consequences  of  the  dissem- 


ination of  the  current  false  views  of  the 
Bible,  have  been  selected  to  address  you 
on  some  phases  of  this  topic. 

It  gives  me  special  pleasure  to  intro- 
duce to  you  as  the  first  speaker,  Rev. 
Albert  H.  Plumb,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  the 
Walnut  Avenue  Congregational  Church, 
Roxbury,  Boston,  Mass.,  whose  theme  is: 
"What  I  Have  Seen  of  the  Results." 


ADDRESS    OF    REV.     DR.    ALBERT     H.     PLUMB 
"What    I    Have    Seen    of  the    Results" 


Mr.  President  and  Christian  friends: 
While  I  appreciate  very  warmly  the  hon- 
or and  privilege  of  making  here  certain 
observations  which  I  am  anxious  to  press 
upon  the  public  mind,  I  must,  at  the  out- 
set, call  attention  to  two  things. 

One  is  that  the  topic  asigned  for  this 
session  is  not  one  requiring  the  learning 
of  a  Biblical  expert  in  all  the  questions 
involved.  Experts  have  their  value.  They 
sometimes  claim  an  exclusive  hearing, 
but,  as  Gladstone  said,  "We  do  ourselves 
wrong  if  we  bow  to  the  authority  of  ex- 
perts out  of  their  peculiar  province." 
Were  this  not  so,  I  would  not  have  been 
present  among  this  body  of  distinguished 


scholars;  but  I  have  felt  that  the  com- 
mon man  is  competent  to  understand 
consequences.  Indeed,  our  Lord  sent 
the  common  people,  you  remember,  di- 
rectly to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
to  settle  the  greatest  of  all  questions, 
"What  think  ye  of  Christ?"  saying  "They 
are  they  which  testify  of  me."  And  so 
I  have  ventured  to  think  that  any  one 
who  has  knowledge  of  the  philosophy  of 
cause  and  effect  can  say  what  the  effect 
of  certain  principles  involved  in  this  dis- 
cussion must  be;  any  one  who  has  been 
at  all  conversant  with  history  will  be 
enabled  to  see  what  the  consequences 
have  been  in  the  past;  and  any  one  at 


26 


all  alert  and  sensitive  to  spiritual  inter- 
ests is  competent  to  say  what  is  now  the 
effect,  occurring  all  around  us  every- 
where, of  certain  principles  under  dis- 
cussion. And  as  I  have  been  trying  for 
some  forty-five  years  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel within  sight  of  the  gilded  dome  of 
the  State  House  in  Boston,  and  as  I  have 
had  the  privilege  and  honor  of  sitting  for 
over  twenty  years  on  the  Prudential 
Committee  of  the  American  Board  of 
Missions  every  Tuesday,  there  have  been 
thrust  upon  me  all  the  time  some  of 
these  evil  consequences,  and  also  the 
good  effects  of  the  contrary  principles, 
and  therefore  I  venture  to  hope  that  an 
ordinary  minister  may  not  be  out  of 
place  in  this  scholarly  company  today  in 
making  known  what  he  has  seen. 

The  second  thing  is,  that  it  is  a  matter 
of  inexpressible  grief  for  a  man  to  have 
to  state  what  he  must  of  these  conse- 
quences. I  said  I  was  eager  to  do  this, 
not  that  it  is  a  welcome  task,  but  be- 
cause of  its  vital  necessity  and  vast  im- 
portance. 

True,  it  is  to  be  said  that  these  harm- 
ful views  do  not  always  do  as  much 
harm  as  they  ought  to;  that  is,  God  does 
not  always  leave  a  man  to  the  unhappy 
influences  of  any  one  destructive  princi- 
ple. He  supplies,  in  His  gracious  provi- 
dence, counteracting  agencies  which  limit 
the  deleterious  effect;  and  I  am  happy 
to  say  that  among  those  counteracting 
influences  oftentimes  I  have  observed  the 
power  of  the  lovely  Christian  character 
of  some  of  the  higher  critics.  And  yet 
I  must  remember  they  were  not  nur- 
tured on  this  diet,  and  I  ask  myself,  if  a 
generation  is  trained  on  this  new  food, 
what  sort  of  Christians  will  they  be? 
When  there  is  time  to  reap  the  har- 
vest of  this  new  sowing,  what  will  the 
harvest  be? 

I  was  present  years  ago  at  a  sympo- 
sium in  Dr.  Joseph  Cook's  parlors.  There 
were  gathered  at  the  meeting  many  dis- 
tinguished philanthropists,  men  and  wo- 
men of  culture,  but  who  rejected  the 
Christian  religion.  One  of  those  ladies 
remarked,  "Time  was  when  you  used  to 
conjure  by  the  memory  of  our  praying 
mothers,  but  we  are  of  the  second  gen- 


eration of  unbelievers,  and  that  argu- 
ment does  not  apply."  The  more's  the 
pity. 

And  so,  it  is  not  as  a  disputant,  with 
an  "I-told-you-so,"  that  I  come  here,  but 
with  sincere  sorrow,  sorrow  of   heart. 

I.  And  the  first  point  I  make  in  re- 
gard to  the  destructive  influence  of  the 
higher  criticism  is,  that  its  eagerness  to 
present  every  possible  captious  objection 
to  the  Bible  greatly  ministers  to  our  nat- 
ural aversion  to  spiritual  truth,  and  pro- 
motes in  the  public  mind  a  suspicious 
complaining  attitude  towards  the  Book 
which,  in  vie\y  of  its  kind  intention  and 
its  useful  influence,  it  does  not  deserve. 

You  remember  perhaps  a  work  that 
appeared  many  years  ago  on  "The  Phil- 
osophy of  the  Plan  of  Salvation,"  writ- 
ten by  President  Walker.  The  introduc- 
tion to  that  book,  by  Professor  Calvin  E. 
Stowe,  pictured  two  men,  Contumax  and 
Benignus,  who  were  cast  up  on  a  desert 
island.  Benignus  fell  on  his  knees  and 
thanked  God  for  saving  his  life,  while 
Contumax  growled  that  he  had  lost  ev- 
erything he  had.  On  looking  around, 
they  found  a  little  cavern,  and  there  was 
material  for  fire,  and  coarse  raiment  and 
good,  plain  food.  The  one  was  full  of 
praise  that  the  benignant  government 
thought  so  kindly  of  them,  while  the 
other  complained  that  he  never  had  worn 
such  clothes  in  his  life,  or  eaten  such 
food,  forgetful  that  the  necessities  of 
the  case  limited  such  provision. 

Now,  we  are  all  sinners,  and  God 
is  holy,  and  the  Bible  comes  as  a  remedy 
for  our  sin,  that  we  may  be  at  peace  with 
God.  The  hard  facts  in  our  situation 
were  here  before  the  Bible  came,  and  the 
Bible  is  to  be  looked  upon  primarily  as 
coming  to  help  us.  But  by  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  case,  if  we  ever  are  to  be 
reconciled  to  a  holy  God,  there  must  be 
certain  severe  conditions,  and  that  we 
do  not  like.  This  disposition  to  find 
fault  with  the  truths  of  the  Bible  is  too 
prevalent.  It  does  not  need  to  be  fanned 
into  flame,  as  the  critics  are  doing,  in 
that  they  are  all  the  while  dictating  to 
the  Almighty  how  He  should  have  been 
pleased  to  reveal  Himself  and.  His  plan 
of    salvation.      They    say,    "Why    didn't 


27 


more  than  one  writer  mention  this?" 
"Why  didn't  another  writer  mention 
that?"  "Why  didn't  he  do  it  oftener?" 
"Why  don't  we  find  this?"  and  "Why 
not  that?"  All  these  things  minister  to 
this  complaining  spirit,  and  that  is  a 
wrong  spirit.  We  ought  to  welcome  the 
Bible  with  an  expectant  spirit,  because 
we  have  evidence  enough  that  the  inten- 
tion of  the  Bible  is  good,  and  we  ought 
to  look  kindly  on  its  provisions. 

II.  The  second  charge  I  make  against 
the  Higher  Critics  as  to  the  evil  conse- 
quences I  have  observed,  is,  that  in  their 
appeal  for  perfect  candor,  in  asking  us 
to  come  to  the  Bible  as  we  would  to  any 
other  book,  they  are  making  a  claim 
which,  in  view  of  the  valid  evidence  of 
its  authority,  does  violence  to  our  in- 
tellectual nature,  and  also  to  every  grate- 
ful instinct  of  the  Christian  heart. 

Why,  to  comply  with  that  request  were 
to  commit  a  degrading  crime  against 
our  profoundest  intellectual  convictions. 
We  should  be  false  to  the  dictates  of 
tender  Christian  gratitude  were  we  to 
come  to  the  Bible  as  if  we  had  never  seen 
it.  Oh,  my  friends,  we  have  seen  it,  we 
have  tried  it,  we  know  it  by  experience. 
When  I  was  a  boy  fifteen  years  old,  a 
clerk  in  Western  New  York,  I  felt  that 
the  great  crisis  of  my  life  had  come; 
that  God  was  calling,  and  it  was  to  im- 
peril my  soul  not  to  come  to  Him  at 
once.  Then  and  there  I  tried  to  yield 
to  His  claims,  but  I  was  in  great  anguish 
and  doubt.  There  was  a  good  woman 
whom  I  saw  at  the  prayer-meeting  who 
marked  some  passages  in  my  "Daily 
Food."  "Fear  not,  thou  worn  Jacob.  I 
will  help  thee,  saith  the  Lord."  My  name 
was  not  Jacob,  but  that  promise  just 
suited  me.  I  was  not  a  worm  in  value, 
but  I  was  in  impotence.  My  cry  was 
that  of  the  hymn: 
"Yet  save  a  trembling  sinner,  Lord, 

Whose   hope    still   hov'ring   round   Thy 
Word, 

Would    light    on   some    sweet    promise 
there, 

Some  sure  support  against  despair." 
I  clung  to  that  promise  in  my  hour  of 
distress  as  a  man  does  to  a  spar  in  the 
drowning  waves. 

"Be  not  dismayed,  for  I  am  thy  God; 


I  will  strengthen  thee;  yea,  I  will  up- 
hold thee  with  the  right  hand  of  my 
righteousness." 

Do  you  think  now  I  can  ever  come  to 
that  promise,  or  to  the  Book  of  Isaiah, 
without  a  feeling  of  prepossession  in  its 
favor?  Speak  well  of  the  bridge  that  has 
carried  you  safely  over   a  chasm! 

We  have  a  room  in  our  house  called 
Fred's  room.  Fred  has  been  in  heaven 
four  years.  There  are  a  couple  of  pic- 
tures hanging  in  that  room;  one  of  them 
is  a  picture  of  one  of  our  sea-side  resorts 
in  the  summer  time,  and  the  other  is  a 
picture  of  that  same  resort  when  the 
wild  tempests  of  winter  are  on  it,  and  a 
dismantled  wreck  Ues  there.  These  two 
pictures  hang  upon  the  wall  by  one 
cord,  a  piece  of  rope  ten  feet  long  and 
one  inch  thick,  and  it  was  by  that  cord 
that  my  boy  was  bound  to  the  rigging  of 
that  vessel  as  it  drifted  helpless  nine 
hours  in  a  November  storm.  The  last 
twelve  years  of  his  life  and  his  precious 
companionship  were  due  to  that  rope. 
Dear  friends,  can  I  ever  go  into  that 
room  and  look  upon  that  rope  as  upon 
any  other  old  rope? 

I  have  a  friend,  long  a  missionary  in 
India,  one  who  has  known  so  much  about 
the  Bible  women  in  that  land,  and  loves 
the  Bible  so  gratefully  that  in  passing 
through  a  room  sometimes  she  can  not 
restrain  herself  from  going  where  the 
Bible  lies,  and  laying  a  caressing  hand 
upon  it.  The  feeling  we  have  for  that 
book  is  not  like  that  we  have  for  any 
other  book,  if  we  know  anything  about 
it  in  our  experience. 

III.  Furthermore,  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  critics  create  the  impression  very 
largely  in  the  public  mind  that  they  are 
doing  great  service  by  controverting  ev- 
erything that  is  dear  in  our  Bible,  and 
that  they  are  yet  to  be  regarded  as 
friends  of  righteousness,  and  no  one  is 
ever  to  object  to  their  course,  or  ques- 
tion their  standing  in  the  church. 

Here  is  the  Boston  Transcript  of  last 
Saturday,  telling  about  this  meeting  and 
saying  that  "Orthodox  leaders  deplore 
the  launching  of  the  Bible  League,"  be- 
cause "religious  strife  is  feared."  It 
adds: 


28 


"The  orthodox  leaders  admit  that  the 
higher  critics  have  never  been  contro- 
versalists.  These  critics  have  stated  their 
positions  candidly.  They  have  not 
sought  to  force  them  upon  others.  The 
league  comes  in  at  this  time  and  brings 
controversy  with  it." 

Now  religious  controversy  is  not  nec- 
essarily an  evil,  any  more  than  Presi- 
dent Eliot's  holy  war  in  his  magnificent 
contention  just  now  for  the  "joy  of 
work,"  against  the  misconception  and 
prejudices  of  certain  valiant  knights  of 
labor.  Why  don't  the  secular  editors, 
who  often  blame  ministers  for  standing 
up  in  behalf  of  certain  principles  as 
against  others,  take  their  own  medicine, 
and  quit  arguing  about  trusts  and  the 
labor  problems?  Has  there  ever  been 
any  other  way  in  which  men  come  to 
a  more  general  agreement  as  to  facts  and 
opinions  than  by  discussion,  unless  it  be 
by  the  test  of  practical  working,  and  that 
involves  argument,  to  show  which  works 
best  and  is  more  nearly  true?  The  con- 
troversies of  the  Church  have  by  no 
means  been  confined  to  trivial  matters; 
some  of  the  greatest  heroes  of  the  ages 
have  been  noted  controversialists,  whose 
work  was  a  necessity  and  an  honor,  and 
resulted  in  imperishable  treasures  for 
mankind. 

As  human  nature  is,  however,  relig- 
ious controversy  often  brings  a  strain 
upon  kind  feeling,  and  is  liable  to  work 
incidental  harm.  And  the  responsibility 
for  introducing  religious  controversy, 
with  all  its  perils,  rests  always  upon 
those  who  introduce  new  views,  and  thus 
controvert  received  opinions. 

The  first  sentence  quoted  above  would 
be  exactly  true  if  one  letter  were  omit- 
ted: "The  higher  critics  have  ever  been 
controversialists."  Leave  out  three  let- 
ters from  the  third  sentence,  and  that 
would  be  true:  concerning  their  opinions, 
"they  have  sought  to  force  them  upon 
others";  not  only  by  the  force  of  the 
better  reason  as  they  think,  but  by  the 
arrogant  claim  of  authority,  many  of 
them  asserting,  and  most  of  them  im- 
plying, that  about  all  the  brains  and  all 
the  scholarship  are  so  far  on  their  side, 
that  our  "sanity"  may  b^  doubted  if  we 


do  not  accept  their  conclusions.  If  their 
efforts  have  been  censured,  it  has  been 
because  of  the  spirit  and  method  some- 
times shown;  never  to  challenge  their 
right  of  inquiry.  Congregationalists  es- 
pecially are  utterly  impatient  at  the  erec- 
tion of  any  barrier  to  free  thought.  No 
fetters  on  the  mind,  no  restraint  on  the 
right  of  free  inquiry.  But  the  critics 
have  no  monopoly  of  free  speech. 

Freedom  to  attack  existing  beliefs  im- 
plies freedom  to  defend  them.  The  lib- 
erty to  assault  the  citadel  of  truth  is  no 
more  sacred  than  the  liberty  to  defend 
that  citadel.  If  anyone  and  everyone 
who  calls  himself  a  higher  critic  is  free 
to  build  up  his  earthworks,  and  plant  his 
batteries,  and  train  his  guns,  and  keep  up 
perpetual  cannonade  against  whatever 
cherished  belief  he  feels  called  upon  to 
demolish,  he  must  not  be  surprised,  or 
his  friends  hold  up  their  hands  in  holy 
horror  at  religious  strife,  if  at  length, 
after  long  patience,  some  answering 
shots  from  the  heavy  artillery  of  Chris- 
tian defence  come  thundering  along  his 
way. 

Yet,  as  the  critic's  destructive  work 
is  directed  at  the  whole  body  of  Chris- 
tian believers,  charging  them  with  teach- 
ing error,  it  names  no  person  in  particu- 
lar; and,  since  the  reply  of  necessity 
must  be  aimed  at  the  individual  critic, 
outsiders  sometimes  think  such  perso- 
nalities are  unfair,  and  cry  "Persecution!" 
The  critics  themselves,  however,  do  not, 
for  they  are  used  to  it,  having  on  hand 
all  the  time  such  bitter  controversies 
among  themselves. 

A  few  months  ago  the  versatile  and 
volatile  Rev.  B.  Fay  Mills  resumed  his 
peculiar  and  most  remarkable  advocacy 
of  his  new  evangelism  in  Wisconsin.  It 
was  asserted  "that  he  now  throws  all 
doctrinal  controversy  overboard,  throws 
aside  all  theological  discussion  and  pre- 
sents truth  in  which  all  churches  meet." 
This  is  what  he  calls  "constructive 
work,"  in  a  recent  personal  letter,  in 
courteous  reply  to  a  friendly  note  of 
inquiry  from  me:  "I  will  neither  criti- 
cise men,  nor  institutions,  nor  doctrines, 
nor  will  I  reply  to  criticism."  But  in  the 
same   breath    his    next    Sunday   sermon 


29 


was  announced  as  "The  True  Biography 
of  Jesus."  Constructive  work,  indeed! 
What  could  be  more  violently  destruc- 
tive of  the  foundations  of  the  faith  of  the 
churches  than  thus  in  effect  to  denounce 
the  accepted  biography  of  Jesus  as  false? 
This  is  precisely  what  many  of  the  high- 
er critics  are  doing,  controverting  our 
belief  in  the  record  of  Jesus's  life  and 
work. 

It  seems  as  if  some  of  these  men  want 
to  eat  their  cake  and  have  it  too.  They 
want  all  the  reputation  of  being  leaders 
in  the  Christian  Church,  and  yet  tear 
away  the  foundations  on  which  that 
Church  stands.  Thus  they  develop  a 
low  moral  sense  as  to  the  responsibility 
of  the  position  of  representative  expo- 
nents of  the  Christian  religion.  The 
right'to  hold  and  teach  opinions  destruc- 
tive of  the  Christian  religion  is  not  con- 
sistent with  the  right  to  stand  as  the 
friend  and  teacher  of  that  religion. 

IV.  The  disposition  of  some  of  our 
critical  friends  to  deny  the  authority  of 
God's  written  Word,  and  install  in  its 
place  the  ideas  of  the  critic  as  to  what  the 
Bible  ought  to  teach,  and  what  ought 
to  be  true,  is  fostering  an  offensive  hu- 
man pride  and  greatly  imperils  the  rare 
and  precious  virtue  of  humility. 

I  was  at  an  installation  the  other  day 
of  a  fine  young  minister.  His  paper  very 
properly  said:  "I  believe  in  the  Divine 
authority  of  the  Bible  in  matters  of 
faith  and  practice";  and  then  he  added, 
very  improperly:  "The  reason  why  I  be- 
lieve it  is  that  the  Scriptures  find  me." 
The  next  man  may  say:  "Some  parts  of 
the  Bible  find  me  and  other  parts  do  not, 
and  those  I  reject."  That  installs  the 
man's  opinion  instead  of  the  Word  of 
God  in  the  place  of  spiritual  authority. 
Every  man  makes  his  own  Bible,  accord- 
ing to  that. 

Thus  the  author  of  "The  Christ  of  To- 
Day,"  in  arguing  that  all  will  be  saved 
because  he  thinks  "the  human  soul  is 
forever  indispensable  to  Christ,"  says, 
"Many  texts  may  be  adduced  from  the 
New  Testament  against  the  idea  of  a  Di- 
vine Choice  inclusive  of  humanity;  but 
these  isolated  passages  must  be  read  in 
the  light  of  the  great  declaration  of  John: 


'God  is  light,  and  in  Him  is  no  dark- 
ness at  air."  Among  those  texts  thus 
trampled  under  foot  are  some  of  the  most 
solemn  declarations  of  our  Lord,  con- 
cerning the  judgments  He  will  pronounce 
at  the  last  day.  My  opinion,  the  judg- 
ment of  a  poor  sin-blinded  mortal  on  my 
way  to  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,  iis 
thus  made  to  override  the  judgment  of 
the  Judge  on  the  throne,  simply  because 
I  have  a  feeling  that  Christ's  words  cast 
a  shadow  on  the  character  of  God.  This 
is  where  we  are  left  when  we  deny  the 
authority  of  God  in  His  written  word. 
And  I  submit,  it  ought  to  be,  and  from 
my  observation  I  find  that  it  is,  hurtful 
to  a  person's  character  to  assume  this 
lofty  prerogative  of  sitting  in  judgment 
on  the  truth  of  Christ's  words.  It  is 
placing  a  man  on  a  pedestal,  very  flat- 
tering to  human  pride,  but  very  destruc- 
tive of  the  true  humility  befitting  our 
condition.  The  function  of  reason  comes 
in  when  Christ  presents  His  credentials 
to  us.  He  said  of  those  who  sinfully  re- 
jected His  words:  "If  I  had  not  done 
among  them  the  works  which  none  other 
man  did,  they  had  not  had  sin."  By 
many  infallible  proofs  he  is  accredited 
at  the  bar  of  our  reason  as  a  trustworthy 
witness.  Concerning  the  subject  matter 
of  his  testimony  my  information  is  so 
meagre,  and  my  mind  so  liable  to  be 
prejudiced,  that  for  me  to  dispute  his 
testimony,  is  to  do  violence  to  right 
principles  of  conduct.  It  is  to  show  such 
an  unreasonable  self-sufficiency  as  con- 
stitutes a  deplorable  blemish  on  one's 
character. 

Many  years  ago  we  had  a  glowing 
prospectus  from  a  great  publishing  house 
in  this  city,  announcing  a  splendid  vol- 
ume they  were  to  print,  giving  the  ex- 
purgated words  of  Jesus.  The  author 
informed  us  how  deliberately  and  de- 
voutly he  had  weighed,  in  the  extremely 
delicate  scales  of  his  super-sensitive  sub- 
jective sensibilities,  all  the  words  at- 
tributed to  Jesus,  and  now,  at  last,  the 
world  might  be  very  sure  it  had  got 
back  to  the  real  Christ.  Well,  what  be- 
came of  this  one  more  endeavor  to  doc- 
tor the  New  Testament  to  suit  a  con- 
ceited man's  whims?    By  long  search  I 


30 


found  a  single  dust-covered  copy  in  the 
Boston  Public  Library,  safely  entombed 
with  a  thousand  other  paltry  products 
of  human  folly. 

Before  I  was  a  minister  I  was  a  pro- 
duce commission  merchant  in  Buffalo; 
and  when  I  wanted  to  buy  a  quantity  of 
flour  I  would  go  on  board  a  vessel  and 
try  the  different  brands,  taking  a  pinch 
in  my  fingers  to  decide  by  the  feeling 
something  of  the  quality,  and  the  adap- 
tation to  different  markets.  I  have  been 
reminded  of  this  when  I  have  seen  the 
self-assurance  of  some  critics,  taking  up, 
as  it  were,  in  the  fingers  of  their  sub- 
jective sense,  a  certain  portion  of  Holy 
Writ,  and  shutting  their  eyes  to  all  exter- 
nal evidence,  oracularly  saying  they  feel 
that  this  passage  was  written  a  thou- 
sand years  later  than  its  alleged  date. 
Taking  up  another  passage,  they  say, 
they  feel  it  is  wholly  spurious,  and  must 
be  thrown  out  altogether.  A  third  pas- 
sage they  examine,  and  gravely  decide 
that  their  feelings  will  allow  that  to 
stand,  at  least  for  the  present.  For  such 
critics  to  demand  that  their  feelings 
shall  give  law  to  everybody  else  is  not 
the  way  to  cultivate  humility. 

I  had  a  habit,  some  years  ago,  of  go- 
ing around  the  house  in  the  dark  the  last 
thing  before  retiring,  to  see  that  the 
lights  were  out  and  the  fires  safe.  I 
went  one  night  through  the  dining-room 
and  thought  I  would  go  to  the  window 
and  see  what  the  weather  promise  was 
for  the  morrow.  I  never  could  go 
straight  in  the  dark,  and  I  went  beyond 
the  window,  and  got  hold  of  a  map  on 
the  wall,  and  put  my  head  behind  it, 
and  looked  to  see  what  the  weather  was 
out  of  doors.  "Well,"  I  said,  "it  is  the 
blackest  night  out  there  I  have  seen  for 
a  long  time!"  When  I  let  go  the  map 
its  rustle  showed  my  mistake.  I  went 
back  a  little  and  pulled  the  shade  away 
and  looked  out,  and  there  the  sweet  stars 
were  shi&jng  in  their  serenity.  I  was 
not  in  the  right  place;  and,  my  friends, 
we  need  to  get  into  the  right  place,  as 
Daniel  did.  "Are  your  windows  open 
toward  Jerusalem,  to  hail  the  coming 
of  the  King?" 

V.  Furthermore,   the    critics,   in  weak- 

31 


cning  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  weaken 
moral  restraints. 

They  claim  they  do  not.  They  say 
the  Bible  is  more  precious  and  more 
powerful  when  you  get  rid  of  all  these 
objectionable  things;  many  pretended 
miracles  which  criticism  throws  out;  and 
what  is  left  is  better  adapted  to  be  use- 
ful. But  somehow  there  are  people  that 
don't  seem  to  think  that  way.  One  of 
them  was  saying  lately:  "Our  minister 
is  so  busy  telling  us  how  many  things 
there  are  in  the  Bible  that  we  must  not 
believe,  and  how  many  there  are  that  it 
is  too  early  to  tell  whether  we  are  to 
believe  them  or  not,  that  he  leaves  us 
in  such  a  haze  that  for  many  days  some- 
times neither  sun  nor  stars  appear." 

If  any  one  thing  is  clear  in  regard  to 
human  duty,  it  is  the  obligation  to  keep 
holy  the  Sabbath  day.  In  the  constitu- 
tion of  man,  in  the  Decalogue,  in  the 
example  of  our  Savior,  in  the  providen- 
tial favor  attending  Sabbath  observance, 
God  has  made  known  His  will  that  one 
day  in  seven  should  be  set  apart  for 
religious  uses,  so  far  as  the  claims  of 
necessity  and  mercy  allow.  Any  man 
who  breaks  the  fourth  commandment 
weakens  those  moral  restraints  which 
religion  alone  can  supply,  and  which  are 
indispensable  to  the  maintenance  of  so- 
cial order. 

A  public  example  of  such  violation  of 
God's  law  w^as  lately  given  in  sight  of 
hundreds  of  young  people,  and  against 
the  remonstrance  of  Christian  teachers, 
by  one  who  thus  showed  that  his  rev- 
erence for  the  Bible  and  his  regard  for 
the  moral  restraints  it  provides  had  been 
lessened,  his  claim  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding, by  his  efforts  as  a  leader 
in  the  destructive  criticism  of  our  time. 
In  an  argument  recently  a  young  min- 
ister, when  a  passage  from  the  Bible 
was  quoted  against  his  position,  instant- 
ly responded,  with  an  air  of  finality,  "Oh, 
but  that  is  in  the  Old  Testament." 

"It  is  written.''  "it  is  written,"  again 
and  again  exclaimed  bur  Lord,  in  that 
awful  hour  when  the  world's  salvation 
was  trembling  in  the  balance;  when 
alone  with  wild  beasts  in  the  wilderness 
He  wrestled  in  dire  encounter  with  the 


arch  fiend  against  all  the  subtlest  temp- 
tations of  hell;  when,  if  He  had  swerved 
a  hair's  breadth  from  the  line  of  perfect 
restitude,  He  would  have  been  forever 
incapacitated  for  His  mediatorial  office. 
It  was  to  the  Old  Testament  then  that 
He  turned  for  spiritual  strength  and  safe 
guidance  in  the  ordering  of  His  conduct. 
Can  we  deride  His  example,  and  despise 
that  source  of  power  to  which  He  resort- 
ed in  His  bitterest  conflict  with  our  com- 
mon foe? 

I  knew  a  minister  for  whom  the  de- 
structive criticism  had  destroyed  faith  in 
the  Bible.  He  left  the  ministry,  and  he 
refused  to  let  his  children  attend  Sunday 
School,  for  he  said:  "They  would  have 
so  much  to  unlearn  when  they  grew  up." 
Some  of  them  have  grown  up,  and  if 
you  knew  the  sad  facts  as  I  do,  you 
would  agree  that  those  families  who 
bring  up  their  children  on  the  Sunday 
newspaper,  are  not  as  likelj'-  to  succeed 
as  those  who  "desire  for  them  the  sin- 
cere milk  of  the  Word,  that  they  may 
grow  thereby." 

I  was  at  an  installation,  and  a  Congre- 
gational minister,  who  held  the  new 
ideas  about  the  Bible,  said  to  the  young 
minister:  "I  congratulate  you  on  enter- 
ing the  ministry  at  a  time  when  Christi- 
anity is  sloughing  off  its  old  forms  and 
putting  on  the  new";  and  he  went  on  as 
if  everything  was  "without  form  and 
void,"  as  the  world  was  in  the  first  chap- 
ter of  Genesis. 

The  minister  who  gave  the  address 
to  the  people  told  the  old  story  about 
the  skipper  on  a  fishing-smack,  who 
went  below  for  a  nap,  having  put  the 
helm  in  the  hand  of  a  new  man,  telling 
him  to  steer  by  a  particular  star.  By 
and  by,  the  man  got  asleep,  and  when  he 
awoke,  the  star  was  away  behind  him. 
He  waked  up  the  captain,  crying,  "Cap- 
tain! Give  me  another  star,  I  have  got 
by  that  one." 

That  is  the  claim  of  a  great  many  peo- 
ple; they  think  they  have  got  beyond  the 
eternal  guiding-stars,  when  the  trouble 
is,  their  own  heads  are  turned.  All  this 
tends  to  weaken  moral  restraint.  That 
minister  who  was  counselling  his  friend 


and  giving  him  congratulations  because 
everything  was  in  a  state  of  flux,  now 
thinks  there  are  a  great  many  men  that 
are  wiser  than  Jesus  ever  was.  He  says 
if  Jesus  were  alive  now  he  could  give 
Him  points.  Now,  do  you  think  that  is 
good  for  public  morals? 

VI.  Again,  in  thus  weakening  the  au- 
thority of  the  Bible  the  Written  Word, 
you  are  paralyzing  Christian  effort. 

Dr.  Wayland  used  to  say  there  is  one 
thing  that  the  Church  has  never  appreci- 
ated, and  that  is,  the  power  of  prayer. 
It  is  an  exalted  privilege  to  lift  the  flood- 
gates by  which  the  Almighty  pours  out 
on  mankind  the  blessings  of  His  grace. 
Are  we  not  continually  urging  Chris- 
tians to  a  higher  estimate  of  the  value 
of  prayer? 

But  I  know  several  pastors  who  have 
given  up  their  midweek  prayer-meeting 
to  give  lectures  on  Higher  Criticism. 
The  views  of  these  erratic  men  got  a 
voice  in  one  of  our  religious  journals, 
setting  forth  the  idea  that  there  is  a 
question  whether  this  great  instrumen- 
tality has  not  outgrown  its  usefulness, 
and  prayer-meetings  ought  to  be  aban- 
doned. 

Within  a  fortnight,  at  the  spring  meet- 
ing of  two  Congregational  Conferences 
in  Massachusetts,  comprising  some  sixty 
churches,  I  heard  profound  expressions 
of  regret  that  doubt  on  such  a  matter 
had  been  so  foolishly  spread,  and  that 
such  a  question  had  found  a  place  on 
the  printed  programs,  and  in  the  discus- 
sions of  two  such  important  meetings. 
It  was  said,  v.'hen  the  early  Church  was 
enjoying  the  Pentecostal  gift,  certain 
brethren  continued  with  one  accord  in 
prayer  and  supplication  with  the  women; 
and  we  read  of  a  place  by  the  riverside 
where  prayer  was  wont  to  be  made.  But 
at  once  the  reply  is  ready:  "That  fur- 
nishes no  guide,  for,  you  know,  scholars 
are  not  all  agreed  on  the  historicity  of 
those  details  in  the  Book  of  Acts." 

Take  another  instance:  Our  Boston 
Monday  meeting  of  Congregational  min- 
isters was  addressed  a  few  years  ago 
by  a  very  estimable  and  scholarly  cler- 
gyman on  the  higher  criticism.  This 
professor   advised   us   not   to    preach   in 


32 


our  pulpits  on  these  matters,  but  to  give 
afternoon    lectures.      "For,"    he    said,   "if 
any  of  your  thoughtful  people  think  that 
their  pastor   does  not  know  that   Moses 
did   not   write    the    Pentateuch,    or   that 
there    were    two    Isaiahs    and    perhaps 
more,  you  will  lose  your  influence  as  a 
competent    religious    leader."      He    also 
said  the  conclusions  of  the  higher  criti- 
cism are  only  matters  of  opinion  which 
do  not  affect  our  work  in  bringing  men 
into   the   life   of   God.     I   am   compelled 
to  take  issue  squarely  with  this  view  of 
the    practical    effect    of    these    opinions. 
Opinions   shape   conduct.     Ideas   control 
life.     Our  belief  concerning  the  messen- 
ger   may    give    force    to    the    message, 
"They  will  reverence  my  Son,"   that  is, 
if  they  think   He  is   God's   Son.      Christ 
speaks    of  those   to  whom   the  word    of 
God  came,  and  our  effort  to  induce  men 
to  yield  to  the  demands  of  this  Word  of 
God    are    directly    and     powerfully     hin- 
dered when  the  critics  tell  them  it  is  not 
the  Word  of  God  at  all,  but  a  fraud,  a 
pretense,    palmed    off    as    the    Word    of 
God,  by  certain  parties  for  partisan  ends. 
At  the  very  time  the  above  plea  for  the 
harmlessness  of  the  higher  criticism  was 
made,    the    pastors    addressed    were    en 
gaged    in    an    earnest    effort    to    induce 
many  young  people  who   seemed   to   be 
entering    the    Christian    life    to    confirm 
their    new    purpose,    and    ensure     their 
growth    and    usefulness,    by    coming    to 
Christ's  table  in  affectionate  response  to 
the   Savior's  tender   desire,  and  in   loyal 
obedience  to  His  express  command.  But 
according  to  the  historical  methods  of  a 
distinguished  higher   critic,  whose  writ- 
ings were  then  being  pressed  upon  the 
public   attention,  whose   manifest   desire 
to  rid  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per of  its  expiatory  teaching,  shapes  his 
treatment    of   the    narrative,    our    young 
people  were  being  told  that  it  is  not  cer- 
tain that  Jesus  ever  instituted  the   sup- 
per, that  while  there  may  be  a  sentimen- 
tal naturalness  in  the  usage  to  those  who 
care    to   observe   it,   there    is   no   divine 
authority    for   its    observance.     This    is 
only  one  of  the  ways  in  which  the  des- 
tructive  criticism,  now   constantly  com- 
ing into  our  families  in  certain  publica- 

33 


tions,  v/eakens   the  hands  of  pastors  in 
their    spiritual   work. 

VII.  One  thing  more,  the  radical 
higher  critics  take  away  our  Lord  by 
destroying  our  confidence  in  Him  as  a 
competent  and  trustworthy  guide. 

Christ  called  the  Old  Testament  the 
Word  of  God,  and  declared  its  authority: 
"The  Scripture  cannot  be  broken."  He 
said  it  testified  of  Him;  He  constantly 
referred  to  it  as  a  truthful  record  of 
God's  dealings  with  men;  He  quoted  it 
as  the  end  of  controversy  in  the  prac- 
tical guidance  of  life  for  others  and  for 
Himself.  But  the  higher  critics  say  that 
in  all  this  He  was  either  mistaken,  or 
repeated  popular  misconceptions  which 
He  knew  were  not  true.  In  either  case 
we  can  say,  "They  have  taken  away  my 
Lord." 

At  an  examination  of  a  theological  stu- 
dent not  long  ago,  he  said:  "There  is 
great  doubt  among  scholars  whether 
there  ever  was  such  a  man  as  Abraham." 
"What  do  you  think?"  he  was  asked. 
"Well,"  he  replied,  "I  am  inclined  to 
think,  on  the  whole,  he  was  a  myth  and 
not  a  man."  Now  if  Christ  did  not  know 
whether  Abraham  was  a  myth  or  a  man. 
He  could  not  say,  "I  am  the  light  of  the 
world;"  and  if  He  knew  he  was  a  myth 
and  not  a  man,  and  yet  spoke  of  him  as 
a  man.  He  could  not  say,  "I  am  the 
Truth."  Christ  said  to  the  Jews:  "Your 
Father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day 
and  he  saw  it  and  was  glad." 

Thus  the  higher  critics  do  not  leave 
us  either  the  intellectual  competence  or 
the  moral  trustworthiness  of  Jesus. 
What  sort  of  a  gospel  have  they  left  us 
to  take  to  this  poor,  lost,  sin-blinded 
world? 

Suppose  the  recent  claim  of  Canon 
Henson  and  other  critics  is  accepted  as 
true,  and  we  agree  that  Christ  had  not  a 
virgin  for  His  mother,  that  He  did  not 
rise  from  the  dead,  that  miracles  do  not 
happen.  It  is  said,  we  still  have  Christ's 
ethical  teachings;  but  divested  of  their 
authority  as  the  utterance  of  a  divine 
Christ,  every  man  is  at  liberty  to  dispute 
even  those  ethical  teachings. 

Moreover,  it  is  something  more  than 
an  ethical  scheme,  more  than  a  system 


of  moral  philosophy,  this  sin-smitten 
race  needs.  What  of  the  spiritual  teach- 
ings of  Christ,  of  His  office  and  mis- 
sion, and  the  relation  of  the  soul  to 
God?  Pretty  much  all  those  teachings 
which  are  distinctive  here,  the  critics  tell 
us  are  "irrational  and  superstitious  ac- 
cretions, the  outcome  of  pagan  and  bar- 
barous ages."  And  to  account  for  those 
supposed  accretions,  the  critics  of  the 
New  Testament  and  of  the  Old  seem  to 
know  or  imagine  a  great  deal  concern- 
ing the  partisan  motives  of  various 
schools  of  thought,  or  of  certain  un- 
known writers  they  suppose  existed  at 
the  proper  time  to  work  these  wonderful 
changes  in  the  record.  But  the  result  is 
that  if  we  trust  the  conjectures  of  the 
critics,  we  shall  listen  in  vain  to  hear 
that  voice  that  has  been  sounding  down 
through  the  ages,  and  echoing  in  the 
hearts  of  innumerable  mighty  heroes  of 
faith,  through  whose  valiant  service  the 
religion  of  Jesus  has  been  transforming 
society,  exalting  humanity,  and  moving 
the  race  on  towards  the  millennial  glory. 
And  when  we  turn  away  from  the 
noisy  din  of  the  critics,  moved  by  the 
irrepressible  longings  of  our  spiritual  na- 
ture, we  hear  again  resounding  in  the  in- 
nermost chambers  of  the  soul,  the  voice 
of  that  radiant  One  who  is  walking  amid 
the  golden  candlesticks,  the  Churches  of 
His  love,  saying:  "All  power  is  given 
unto  Me  in  heaven  and  in  earth."  "The 
Son  of  Man  is  come  to  seek  and  to  save 
that  which  is  lost,  and  to  give  His  life 
a  ransom  for  many."  "I  came  down 
from  Heaven  not  to  do  mine  own  will, 
but  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Me.  And 
this  is  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Me,  that 
every  one  that  seeth  the  Son,  and  be- 
lieveth  on  Him,  may  have  everlasting 
life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last 


day."  "I  am  the  resurrection  and  the 
life."  "The  hour  is  coming  in  which 
all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  the 
voice  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  shall  come 
forth."  "When  the  Son  of  Man  shall 
come  in  His  glory,  and  all  the  holy  an- 
gels with  Him,  then  shall  He  sit  upon  the 
throne  of  His  glory,  and  before  Him 
shali  be  gathered  all  nations,  and  He 
shall  separate  them  one  from  an- 
other." 

It  is  a  matter  of  vast  concern  for  me, 
for  every  soul  of  man,  whether  any  one 
ever  said  all  this  who  had  a  right  to 
say  it,  or  whether  such  voices  are  the 
echoes  of  pitiable  folly  and  sacrilegious 
fraud.  And  therefore  it  is  a  legitimate 
undertaking  in  which  we  are  here  to-day 
engaged,  in  pointing  out  the  unscientific, 
untrustworthy,  unwholesome,  character 
of  that  destructive  criticism  which  hides 
from  suffering  humanity  its  adorable  Re- 
deemer, Who  alone  is  able  and  mighty 
to  save. 

That  is  to  say,  this  is  a  worthy  en- 
gagement on  occasion.  President  Way- 
land's  homely  phrase  was  wise:  "Do  not 
spend  much  time  in  boosting  up  the  Bi- 
ble." We  do  not.  This  Convention 
voices  the  occasional  efforts  of  the 
friends  of  the  Bible.  Our  main  work  all 
the  time  is  to  preach  the  Word  of  God, 
to  teach  the  Bible,  to  apply  its  authorita- 
tive principles  to  all  the  complicated 
problems  of  life,  and  to  exemplify  its 
teaching  in  our  lives. 

"For  the  Word  of  God  is  quick  and 
powerful,  living  and  active,  sharper  than 
any  two-edged  sword,  piercing  even  to 
the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit, 
and  of  the  joints  and  marrow,  and  is 
quick  to  discern  the  thoughts  and  intents 
of  the  heart." 


President  Hall:  We  will  now  have  the  in  this  City,  in  further  discussion  of  the 
pleasure  of  listening  to  Rev.  Dr.  Remen-  general  topic,  "The  Practical  Conse- 
snyder,  of  St.  James'  Lutheran  Church,       quences  of  the  Attack  on  the  Bible." 

34 


ADDRESS    OF     REV.     DR.     REMENSNYDER 
"  Christianity  Placed  On  Trial  " 


That  a  crisis  confronts  Christianity  is 
not  to  be  denied.  Never  has  there  been 
such  a  concert  of  energetic  thinking  di- 
rected against  the  cardinal  tenets  of  the 
Christian  faith.  The  peculiarity  of  the 
situation  is  that  Rationalism  within  the 
Church  is  joining  its  hostile  forces  with 
those  without.  Secular  thinkers  treat 
orthodox  Christianity  with  curt  intoler- 
ance, assuming  that  the  victory  over  it 
is  already  won.  And  with  vast  learning 
and  immense  painstaking,  brilliant  schol- 
ars, professedly  Christian,  are  turning 
the  fire  of  a  destructive  criticism  upon 
the  Bible.  While  declaring  that  their 
aim  is  to  give  us  the  real  message  of  the 
Bible,  and  claiming  a  motive  to  honor  it, 
they  are  insidiously  destroying  the  main 
grounds  upon  which  can  rest  any  belief 
in  its  inspiration  or  any  respect  for  its 
authority.  This  new  attack  on  the  Bi- 
ble has  evidently  put  Christianity  anew 
on  trial. 

And  constantly  it  is  urged,  that  we 
must  look  upon  the  Scriptures  from  a 
totally  new  standpoint,  that  Christian 
theology  must  undergo  a  radical  recon- 
struction, and  that  the  great  and  essen- 
tial Christian  doctrines  must  submit  to 
cardinal  modifications.  The  Bible  is  sim- 
ply a  book  of  moral  edification,  not  a 
revelation  of  divine  truth.  If  Christian- 
ity will  not  thus  adapt  itself  to  the  spirit 
of  the  age,  we  are  told  that  it  can  not 
survive,  but  will  be  relegated  to  the 
niche  of  an  effete,  outworn  faith. 

But  let  not  the  hearts  of  believers 
fail,  nor  let  any  one  waver  in  his  firm, 
full  confession.  It  was  meant  that  the 
Kingdom  of  God  should  pass  through 
just  such  crises  as  this.  True  faith  is 
but  purified  and  strengthened  by  the  se- 
verity of  the  crucible.  Time  and  again 
has  the  Church  met  such  crises,  when 
the  powers  of  darkness  have  premature- 
ly rejoiced,  and  when  the  hearts  of 
Christians  have  grown  faint.  But  ever 
has  she  issued  forth  victoriously  from 
the  peril,  and  entered  upon  a  larger  and 
more  prosperous  career.  But  the  point 
for  us  to  weigh  is  that  this  has  not  been 


done  without  effort.  Victory  can  not  be 
won  by  inertia,  listlessness  and  indiffer- 
ence. Attack  must  be  met  by  defence. 
Sleepless  aggressiveness  must  be  resist- 
ed by  untiring  vigilance.  Scholarship 
must  be  answered  by  scholarship.  Spe- 
cialists must  be  refuted  by  specialists. 
If  we  allow  the  citadel  to  be  carelessly 
defended  and  exposed,  we  must  not  be 
surprised  if  it  be  taken  by  assault.  It 
is  a  burning  shame  if  the  confessors  of 
Christ  manifest  less  of  interest,  ardor 
and  sacrifice  in  standing  up  for  His 
cause,  than  those  exhibit  who  are  bent 
on  overthrowing  it.  At  present,  not 
only  do  Christians  seem  not  to  be  suffi- 
ciently awake  to  the  danger,  but  they 
are  allowing  to  the  enemy  almost  a 
monopoly  of  zeal  and  enthusiasm.  One 
can  not  but  admire  the  patient,  tireless 
study  and  microscopical  investigation 
which  extremely  latitudinarian  critics  are 
giving  to  every  book  of  the  Bible.  The 
most  difficult  secrets  of  history  are  ex- 
plored. The  most  improbable  and  im- 
possible hypotheses  are  formulated.  Ev- 
ery conceivable  literary  outfit  is  brought 
into  play.  Money  is  expended  with  the 
most  lavish  liberality.  The  press  is  used 
with  unparalleled  energy,  and  these  nega- 
tive views  are  circulated  far  and  wide. 
They  are  touching  and  influencing  every 
channel  of  current  thought.  Especially 
is  the  effort  made  to  popularize  them,  to 
present  them  in  such  attractive  guise  as 
to  win  the  ear  and  gain  the  mind  of  the 
public.  The  situation  reminds  one  of  a 
witticism  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  In 
the  hall  of  the  Twin  Mountain  House  in 
the  White  Mountains,  where  he  spent  his 
vacations,  he  observed  a  painting  which 
represented  a  huge  mastiff  asleep,  with 
a  fine  piece  of  meat  between  his  paws, 
which  an  agile  little  cur  is  quietly  and 
dexterously  getting  away  with.  "This 
scene,"  humorously  remarked  Beecher, 
"fitly  represents  the  conservatives  and 
the  radicals  in  religion.  While  the  mas- 
sive watch-dogs  of  orthodoxy  are  se- 
curely asleep,  the  vigilant  poodles  of 
destructive    thought    are    stealing    away 


35 


the  faith  from  the  hearts  of  the  people." 
Still,  there  is  no  peril,  if  we  but  do  our 
duty,  for  God  is  on  this  side  of  Zion  and 
its  loyal  servants.  But  the  holy  treas- 
ure of  our  faith  can  only  be  preserved  by 
the  fidelity,  the  learning,  the  mental  ef- 
fort and  activity  of  its  defenders.  Chris- 
tians must  be  awake  to  the  emergency. 
They  must  think,  must  read,  must  have 
an  intelligent  acquaintance  with  the  ques- 
tions at  issue,  and  must  be  quite  as  able 
to  repel,  as  others  are  to  assail.  They 
must  call  for  and  liberally  support  evan- 
gelical publications.  It  is  but  by  thus 
contending  earnestly  for  the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints  that  it  can  be 
maintained  inviolate.  And  evincing  this 
vigilance  and  putting  on  the  whole  pan- 
oply of  God,  no  one  need  have  the  least 
doubt  or  tremor  as  to  the  final  issue. 
The  Bible,  Christianity  and  the  Church 
will  come  forth  from  this  crisis  triumph- 
ant as  from  every  other. 

What,  in  a  word,  will  be  the  practical 
effect,  if  by  our  failure  to  recognize  the 
fact  that  Christianity  is  on  trial  in  this 
attack,  we  do  not  meet  it  with  timely, 
energetic  resistance? 

The  authority  of  the  Bible  will  be 
weakened,  in  fact,  practically  destroyed. 
Its  spiritual  authority  rests  upon  the 
fact  that  it  stands  unique  in  literature. 
Other  books  and  moral  writings  are  the 
product  of  the  natural  human  mind.  But 
the  Bible  claims  to  be  given  by  men  su- 
pernaturally  inspired  to  know  the  will 
and  truth  of  God.  The  extreme  higher 
criticism  explains  the  Bible  by  the  same 
natural  process  by  which  merely  human 
writings  have  arisen.  It  is  absurd  to 
contend  that  when  the  Bible's  unique 
basis  of  authority  has  been  thus  removed 
it  can  any  more  wield  the  supreme  in- 
fluence over  the  consciences  of  men  it 
has  had  all  through  the  centuries. 

It  is  indeed  the  satire  of  logic  to  al- 
lege that  the  more  a  foundation  is  un- 
dermined the  more  secure  the  building 
is  made;  that  the  more  a  wall  is  riddled 
and  battered  down,  the  stronger  it  be- 
comes as  a  bulwark  of  defense;  that  the 
more  a  narrative  is  proven  to  be  a  tis- 
sue of  myth,  legend  and  fable,  the  more 
authentic  it  becomes  as   genuine,  sober 


history;  and  that  the  more  the  Bible  is 
shown  to  be  a  patchwork  of  falsehoods, 
pretended  miracles  and  pious  frauds,  the 
more  it  will  be  looked  up  to  as  a  moral 
code,  demanding  respect  and  obedience. 

Again,  the  cardinal  tenets  of  Christian- 
ity will  be  swept  away.  These  destruc- 
tive attacks  at  first  were  merely  aimed 
at  the  verbal  inspiration  of  Scripture. 
But  from  the  form  it  was  a  short  step  to 
the  substance.  Says  Harnack:  "Jesus 
does  not  belong  to  the  Gospel" — meaning 
that  the  Church's  Jesus,  the  divine 
Christ,  is  not  there.  Cheyne  repudiates 
the  atonement.  Henry  Preserved  Smith 
denies  the  resurrection.  And  so,  one 
after  another  of  the  pillars  of  the  edifice 
of  evangelical  Christianity  is  dragged 
down.  This  result  Canon  Henson  has 
already  reached,  for  he  tells  us  that  ev- 
ery supernatural  fact  and  doctrine  of  the 
New  Testament  must  go. 

Further,  the  foundations  of  morality 
will  be  impaired.  Ethics  that  do  not 
rest  upon  religion  are  unable  to  check 
immorality  and  sin.  Remove  the  super- 
natural sanctions  given  by  a  personal 
God,  immortality  and  future  judgment, 
which  are  found  in  the  Bible  only,  and 
there  is  no  adequate  deterrent  from 
wrongdoing,  no  sufficient  motive  to  men 
to  choose  duty  to  the  sacrifice  of  pleas- 
ure. 

Finally,  irreparable  harm  will  be  done 
to  those  outside  of  Christianity.  The 
most  potent  argument  to  draw  men  to 
the  Church  is  the  authority  of  the  Word 
of  God.  But  when  Christians  no  longer 
accord  the  Bible  this  place,  why  should 
the  world  trouble  itself  about  it?  What 
is  it  to  them  then,  more  than  any  other 
book?  In  practical  effect,  then,  these 
so-called  modern  views  and  this  New 
Theology,  so  far  from  pouring  new  light 
on  the  Bible,  flood  it  with  darkness,  and, 
displacing  this  venerable  volume  from 
its  seat  as  the  bed  rock  of  religion,  mor- 
ality and  civilization,  will  turn  the  world 
backward  on  its  axis  to  the  dark  ages  of 
history. 

Let,  then,  Christians  everywhere  be 
aroused  to  the  crucial  nature  of  the 
struggle.  And  standing  in  impregnable 
phalanx  for  the  Word   of  God  and  the 


36 


altar  of  our  faith,  as  did  the  saints  and 
fathers  of  old,  we  will  win  a  victory 
which  will  make  epochal  our  age  by  one 


more  of  those  great  triumphs  which 
shine  like  mighty  sea  marks  along  the 
shore  of  Christian  history. 


President  Hall:  Among  the  organizers 
of  The  American  Bible  League,  and 
among  those  who  have  for  years  prayed 
that  God  might  stir  up  His  people  to 
some  definite  organized  action  along  the 


line  of  campaign  that  is  represented  by 
this  Convention,  I  can  give  the  name  of 
the  one  who  is  now  to  address  us,  the 
pastor  of  this  Church,  our  much-beloved 
friend,    Rev.    Dr.    David   James    Burrell. 


ADDRESS    OF     REV.     DR.     BURRELL 
"Preachers  and  the  Dictionary" 


I  observe  that  a  good  many  of  the 
speakers  have  had  something  good  to 
say  of  the  Bible,  but  there  is  one  book 
that  is  being  seriously  neglected,  and  I 
should  like  in  making  reference  to  the 
practical  consequences  of  Destructive 
Criticism  to  pay  my  very  reverential  res- 
pects to  that  other  book.  The  Bible  is 
the  Gibraltar  of  the  Church,  it  is  true; 
but,  good  people,  the  Bible  would  not 
mean  anything  to  us  if  it  were  not  for 
another  book,  which  is  in  sore  danger  by 
reason  of  Destructive  Criticism  in  these 
days.  I  mean  the  dictionary.  I  speak 
now  for  the  dictionary.  I  am  not  a  bit 
afraid  for  the  Bible;  I  am  afraid  for  the 
other  book.  I  am  not  here  to  save  the 
Bible  from  danger.  God  forbid!  On 
last  St.  Patrick's  Day,  when  the  proces- 
sion was  coming  up  here  on  the  avenue, 
a  little  girl  with  her  pet  dog  was  down 
below,  and  the  mother  was  up  in  the 
window  above,  and  they  were  watching 
the  procession.  The  dog  got  into  a 
great  nervous  fury,  and  was  barking  and 
running,  and  the  little  girl  was  greatly 
troubled,  and  she  called  out,  "Mother, 
come  quick!  Jip  is  going  to  bite  the 
army!"  I  am  not  worrying  about  the 
army.  The  Bible  can  take  care  of  itself; 
but  I  am  worried  about  the  book  that  is 
back  of  the  Bible.  It  is  losing  its  defi- 
nitions in  these  days. 

Now,  in  all  seriousness,  brethren,  I 
reckon  among  the  most  calamitous  re- 
sults of  the  metaphysical  speculations 
that  have  been  pursued  by  our  friends 
upon  the  other  side  of  the  Biblical  dis- 
cussion in  these  last  days,  the  complete 
overturning  of  definitions.     That  is  one 


of  the  bad  things  that  has  come  out  of 
it.  Now,  words  mean  something.  Words 
ought  to  mean  something.  It  is  im- 
mensely important  that  we  preachers, 
when  we  stand  in  the  pulpit,  should 
define  things,  and  stand  by  the  defini- 
tion of  things.  A  man  who  counter- 
feited a  coin  in  Great  Britain  in  the 
olden  times,  paid  the  penalty  with  his 
life;  counterfeiting  was  death.  To  utter 
a  spurious  word  deliberately  is  vastly 
more  calamitous  than  to  utter  a  spurious 
coin. 

When  a  man  stands  in  this  place,  or- 
dained by  God  Almighty  to  stand  here, 
and  speak  the  truth  in  the  name  of  the 
Christ  of  Truth,  he  is  bound  to  stand  by 
his  Bible  and  by  the  definitions  and 
terms  given  in  the  dictionary  with  res- 
pect to  the  great  doctrines  which  are 
outlined  in  the  Word  of  God. 

A  friend  of  mine  went  up  to  Boston, 
Dr.  Plumb,  a  little  while  ago,  and  heard 
one  of  your  ministers  who  is  a  very 
bright  man,  and  a  warm  friend  of  mine, 
and  who  is  so  far  off  that  I  don't  know 
whether  he  believes  he  wears  shoes  or 
not.  But  I  do  know  my  friend  came 
back  and  said  to  me,  "I  never  heard 
such  an  orthodox  sermon  as  that  was!" 
Now,  in  point  of  fact,  if  he  had  known 
the  man  as  I  did,  he  would  have  known 
that  he  had  a  dictionary  of  his  own. 

Now,  I  say  there  is  a  whole  line  of 
important  words,  and  practically  they 
are  the  words  that  make  the  entire 
chain  of  terminology  in  Christian  doc- 
trine, and  this  whole  list  of  technical 
words  is  being  used  in  one  way  by  men 
who    are    loyal    to    the    Scriptures,    and 


37 


by  men  on  the  other  side  of  this 
controversy  in  a  totally  and  fundamen- 
tally different  way.  Inspiration,  Atone- 
ment, Vicarious,  Resurrection,  even  Im- 
mortality, all  these  words  are  used  in 
undictionary  ways.  Men  are  using  them 
in  the  pulpit  and  explaining  away  the 
significance  of  the  doctrines  they  were 
intended  to  designate.  They  are  doing 
it  all  the  while,  and  the  people  do  not 
know  it,  and  they  sit  in  the  pews  and 
think  that  the  pastors  believe  in  these 
things. 

Now  what  is  the  consequence? 

The  result  is  disastrous  to  common 
honesty  and  to  our  confidence  in  human 
nature,  and  it  is  thus  around  the  whole 
circumference  of  our  ecclesiastical  life. 

And  not  only  words  such  as  I  have  in- 
dicated, technical  words,  are  twisted,  put 
on  the  rack  and  twisted,  tortured  until 
they  scream  out  things  that  neither  the 
Bible  nor  the  dictionary  ever  meant  they 
should,  but  untechnical  words  as  well. 
Take  that  little  word  "is."  You  would 
think  everybody  knew  what  is  means; 
yet  there  are  men  who  are  preaching  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  who  do  not  know 
its  meaning,  but  are  using  it  in  outre 
and  outlandish  and  lawless  ways.  I  say 
the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  I  want 
to  mean  it;  but  I  do  not  know  a  man  on 
the  other  side  who  would  not  say  "the 
Bible  is  the  Word  of  God."  But  what 
does  he  mean  by  is?  He  has  got  a  little 
stock  of  reserves  at  his  back  when  he 
says  "is."  He  means  only  that  there 
are  some  things  in  the  Bible  which  are 
true  and  which,  like  all  other  truth  in 
the  world's  literature,  came  from  God. 
In  point  of  fact  he  regards  the  Book  as 
largely  false,  involving  no  end  of  in- 
credible fables  and  legends,  made  up 
considerably  of  forged  documents,  teach- 
ing frequent  error  in  both  doctrine  and 
ethics.  If  he  really  holds  that  opinion, 
why,  in  the  name  of  common  honesty, 
does  he  not  say  so?  If  he  means  that 
the  Bible  merely  contains  a  modicum  of 
truth  why  should  he  say  "is"  rather  than 
"contains?"  He  is  bound  to  speak  so 
that  the  people  shall  not  misunderstand 
him. 

He   is   turning   aside   from   the   tradi- 


tional use  of  the  word,  and  he  is  bound  to 
say  so.  I  would  say  to  the  best  friend 
I  have  on  the  other  side:  he  must  explain 
if  he  is  using  the  word  in  an  out- 
landish way.  "IS  the  Word  of  God"— 
does  he  mean  that?  Brethren,  he  does 
not  mean  what  the  people  think  him  to 
be  saying,  at  all.  I  can  convict  him 
right  here  and  now.  Bring  me  a  hun- 
dred books,  a  hundred  books  that  are  ac- 
cepted by  the  public  as  books  of  general- 
ly acknowledged  truth:  Macaulay's  His- 
tory, Green's,  all  the  other  histories — pile 
them  up  here;  and  books  of  science,  books 
of  common  philosophy — pile  them  up — a 
hundred  books.  Let  the  Bible  be  the 
hundredth  book.  Now,  I  will  call  be- 
fore you  the  man  who  represents  the 
Destructive  Criticism  of  which  we  are 
speaking  today,  and  by  all  that  is  holy  in 
truth,  that  man  is  bound  to  say  that  the 
one-hundredth  book  there  has  certainly 
less  of  truth  in  it  than  any  book  of  all 
the  other  ninety  and  nine!  It  is  not  only 
not  the  best  of  books  by  all  the  canons 
of  common  judgment;  it  is  the  worst 
and  least  trustworthy  of  them  all!  And 
yet,  they  will  say  to  you  without  a  lift- 
ing of  the  eyebrows,  without  a  word  of 
reservation  or  of  qualification,  "The 
Bible  is  true."  "Oh,  yes,  the  Bible  is 
the  Word  of  God."  Now,  you  see  they 
have  turned  the  thing  topsy-turvy.  "Is" 
means  "is  not,"  doesn't  it?  I  say  that 
is  not  honest. 

There  naturally  follows  from  this  ety- 
mological confusion  the  demoralization 
of  the  ministers  themselves.  It  is  record- 
ed that  in  the  period  of  Roman  deca- 
dence the  priests,  as  they  ministered  at 
the  altars,  smiled  in  each  others'  faces,  to 
think  how  easily  they  were  deceiving  the 
people.  Their  level  of  common  morality 
was  no  lower  than  that  of  the  Chris- 
tian minister  who  leads  his  congregation 
in  repeating,  "I  believe  in  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God,  who  was  conceived  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  while  privately  affirm- 
ing, "It  is  nothing  to  me  whether  Jesus 
was  begotten  by  the  Holy  Ghost  or  by 
Joseph  of  Nazareth."  In  such  cases  the 
fine  edge  of  honesty  has  worn  off,  and 
manly  courage  has  gone  with  it. 

Now,  do  you  begin  to  see  that  the  die- 


38 


tionary  is  of  some  consequence?  It 
makes  a  difference  how  men  trifle  with 
definitions.  That  is  a  far-reaching  cal- 
amity that  comes  from  this  Destructive 
Criticism.  It  was  born  in  the  fact  that 
men  were  timid  at  the  first  in  anouncing 
their  conclusions,  and  it  lingers  still  be- 
cause they  know  that  the  great  multi- 
tude of  the  people  who  sit  in  the  pews 
are  loyal  to  the  Word  of  God. 

A  second  result  of  this  sinister  use  of 
historic  and  well-defined  words  and 
phrases  is  seen  in  a  diminishing  attend- 
ance at  church.  Preachers  who  believe 
and  affirm  their  convictions  without 
mumbling  or  mouthing  usually  have  no 
difficulty  in  getting  a  hearing.  But  the 
times  are  too  earnest  and  strenuous  for 
a  meaningless  theology.  Men  and  wo- 
men are  too  busy  in  these  days  to  trouble 
themselves  with  "ifs"  and  "perhapses;" 
and  they  have  too  much  common  sense 
to  listen  to  preachers  whose  vocabulary 
can  not  be  depended  on.  Commerce  de- 
clines when  Bank-note  Reporters  have  to 
be  used  to  determine  the  value  of  com- 
mon currency.  So  it  has  come  about 
that,  in  certain  portions  of  our  country 
where  this  kind  of  preaching  prevails, 
the  Sabbath  services  are  thinly  attend- 
ed and  not  infrequently  churches  are 
abandoned  altogether.  I  can  go,  my 
dear  Dr.  Plumb,  up  into  some  portions 
of  New  England  with  which  I  am  thor- 
oughly familiar,  and  find  you  churches 
there  filled  with  void  because  Ichabod 
is  written  over  the  archway  and  the  con- 
gregation with  the  glory  has  departed. 
That  is  true,  isn't  it? 

I  know  what  some  of  you  ministers  are 
giving  them  there,  and  it  is  not  con- 
fined to  New  England.  Why  should  the 
people  come  to  hear  a  man  cast  reflec- 
tions upon  the  truth  of  the  Word  of 
God,  air  his  doubts  and  add  to  the 
misgivings  of  the  individual  man,  when 
God  knows  that  he  has  enough  of  his 
own?  He  does  not  need  to  go  to  church 
for  that.  Give  the  people  truth  and  they 
will  come.  The  churches  where  God's 
Truth  is  being  ministered  are  not  lament- 
ing today  over  the  loss  of  a  congrega- 
tion. I  say  that  deliberately  and  I  mean 
it     The   average   business   men — and   I 


speak  to  busy  men,  and  wives  who  are 
cumbered  with  much  serving,  too — and 
we  have  reached  an  age  in  the  history 
of  the  world  when  they  are  too  busy  in 
the  hurly-burly  of  life  to  go  anywhere 
to  hear  ifs  and  perhapses,  or  loose 
phrases  about  anything — they  want  a 
man  to  stand  up  in  the  pulpit  and  if  he 
has  any  convictions,  utter  them  squarely 
in  plain  English,  and  without  indirec- 
tion. You  won't  go  to  this  church  or  any 
other  church  to  hear  a  man  propound 
conundrums  and  hypotheses  to  you.  O, 
man,  on  the  road  to  the  Judgment  Bar 
of  God,  don't  waste  your  time  that 
way!  Get  out  of  the  church  where  you 
hear  only  the  sermon  of  a  man  who  does 
not  believe  the  gospel  he  preaches,  or  is 
explaining  away  by  the  use  of  false 
phrases  or  misused  words  the  truth 
which  he  is  in  covenant  bound  to  preach 
to  the  people.  The  people  understand. 
The  reason  why  they  are  not  going  to 
some  churches  is  because  what  Lincoln 
said  is  true,  "You  can  trust  the  people, 
they  are  not  fools." 

A  third  result  is  seen  in  the  lack  of 
candidates  for  the  ministry.  There  arc 
Theological  Seminaries,  where  a  nega- 
tive or  destructive  criticism  is  taught, 
that  have  to  beat  the  woods  for  students. 
And  why  not?  Why  should  a  youth  de- 
vote himself  to  a  ministry  that  has  no 
purpose  but  to  ask  unanswerable  ques- 
tions or  root  up  convictions  in  the  souls 
of  men?  The  Seminaries  that  teach  pos- 
itive truth,  while  not  wholly  unaffected 
by  the  general  sentiment,  are  numerously 
attended  by  as  earnest  and  able  a  body 
of  students  as  ever  devoted  themselves 
to  the  service  of  Christ;  but,  as  to  the 
total  list  of  candidates,  there  is  a  con- 
siderable falling  off.  And  again  I  ask, 
Why  not?  What,  in  the  name  of  youth- 
ful zeal  and  holy  ambition,  has  a  nega- 
tive or  equivocal  ministry  to  offer  a 
young  man?  Why  should  he  consecrate 
his  life  to  tearing  things  down  and  throw- 
ing things  overboard?  Or,  more  import- 
ant still,  why  should  he  deliberately  set 
out  to  preach  doctrines  which  are  dis- 
counted, in  words  twisted  out  of  their 
usual  sense?  The  average  young  man  is 
rational.      Give    him    something    worth 


doing  and  he  will  hasten  to  the  task; 
but  the  glory  of  youth  revolts  against  the 
thought  of  beating  the  air. 

But,  though  I  thus  speak,  I  have  no 
misgivings  as  to  the  final  outcome.  Nei- 
ther the  Bible  nor  the  dictiona^ry  is  in 
any  real  danger.  The  "Impregnable 
Rock  of  Holy  Scripture"  will  stand,  like 
Gibraltar,  when  the  wreckage  of  the  hos- 
tile fleet  is  scattered  on  every  side.  The 
prime  purpose  of  the  Bible  League  is 
neither  offensive  nor  defensive;  it  is  in- 
tended to  be  a  fellowship  of  people  who 
are  like-minded  as  to  the  trustworthiness 
of  Scripture  and  the  positiveness  of  the 
truths  contained  in  it.  We  believe  in  the 
Bible  as  the  Written  Word  and  in  Christ 


as  the  Incarnate  Word  of  God;  and,  in 
saying  that,  we  employ  words  in  their 
usual  sense,  have  no  desire  to  qualify, 
and  we  mean  precisely  what  we  say.  It 
is  a  goodly  company.  "Blest  be  the 
tie  that  binds!"  The  work  of  defend- 
ing the  Scriptures  is  merely  incidental 
to  the  real  purpose  of  the  organization 
as  I  understand  it.  We  propose  to  lend 
ourselves  to  the  positive  and  constructive 
teaching  of  the  vital  truths  of  our  re- 
ligion as  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures.  Our 
desire  is  not  to  tear  down  but  to  build 
up;  not  to  instil  doubts  but  to  strengthen 
faith;  and  in  all  things  to  buttress  our 
teachings  with  the  ultimate  authority  of 
the  Word  of  God. 


President  Hall:  In  closing  this  morn- 
ing's session  of  the  Convention,  we  are 
to  have  the  privilege  of  listening  to  the 
testimonies  of  some  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished men  in  this  country,  as  we 
have  listened  to  such  men  in  the  ad- 
dresses already  delivered  this  morn- 
ing. They  will  speak  briefly  and  right 
to  the  point,  as  they  always  do,  and  I 
am  sure  that  all  of  you  who  remain  for  the 
few  moments  they  are  to  occupy  will  be 


glad  that  you  remained.  I  trust  that 
you  will  bring  with  you  this  afternoon 
as  many  of  your  friends  as  you  can  pos- 
sibly mduce  to  come. 

It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  intro- 
duce the  Rev.  Robert  Russell  Booth, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  this  city,  Pastor  Emeri- 
tus of  the  Rutgers  Riverside  Presbyter- 
ian Church,  and  ex-Moderator  of  the 
Presbyterian  General  Assembly,  who  will 
now  address  us. 


ADDRESS      OF      REV.     DR.     ROBERT     RUSSELL     BOOTH 
"The  Claim  of  a  'Consensus'  of  the  Scholars" 


I  have  so  much  respect  for  the  breth- 
ren who  are  to  speak  after  me  that  I 
shall  be  very  brief  in  what  I  have  to 
say.  The  subject  has  been  so  presented 
from  different  points  of  view,  in  the 
services  of  last  evening  and  this  morn- 
ing, that  as  to  the  substance  hardly  any- 
thing that  is  novel  can  be  said.  Yet  there 
are  always  personal  impressions;  and 
the  experience  and  convictions  of  one 
who  has  seen  this  evil  growing  on  this 
ground  for  fifteen  years,  and  who  has 
faced  it,  and  who  has  suffered  in  the 
process,  entitles  him  at  least  to  utter  a 
word  of  thanks  that  this  League  has 
been  established,  and  that  it  is  here  to 
stay. 

I  have  been  for  a  very  long  time  in 
the  service  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
here  in  New  York.  The  contemporaries 
of  my  early  ministry  were  men  like  Dr. 


Phillips  [to  Chairman  Hall],  your  grand- 
father, who,  compared  with  many  that 
are  now  upon  this  field,  were  as  giants 
unto  pigmies;  and  I  can  imagine  what  a 
sense  of  horror  would  have  filled  those 
men  if  they  had  foreseen  the  things  that 
have  been  said  and  done  by  some  among 
us  in  respect  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

What  I  would  say  briefly  concerns 
what  I  hope  to  be  the  clear  outcome  of 
this  Bible  League.  I  hope  that  in  its 
future  activity,  in  the  first  place,  it  will 
be  enabled  to  dispel  the  ignus  fatuus  of 
a  "consensus"  on  the  side  of  the  Des- 
tructive Criticism.  Now,  this  is  a  thing 
that  has  not  been  said  here  by  any  of  our 
brethren,  and  it  is  perhaps  the  most  im- 
portant thing  to  have  said.  The  "con- 
sensus," imagined,  fictitious,  unreal,  of 
scholarship  in  regard  to  these  views,  is- 
the   dark   cloud  that  has  hung  over  us 


40 


from  the  beginning.  There  is  no  such 
"consensus;"  and  yet  the  people  do  not 
realize  that  this  is  the  fact.  They  have 
been  misled  by  the  journalists,  who  are 
always  ready  to  present  criticisms  and 
objections  as  if  they  had  been  proven. 
Almost  every  one  gives  the  impression 
that  the  scholarship  is  all  on  the  side 
of  the  Destructive  Critics,  and  yet 
when  we  rank  up  in  line,  man  by  man, 
taking  for  example,  the  published  list  of 
the  adherents  of  this  League,  I  will  say 
that  among  the  men  who  have  thought 
and  studied  most  deeply,  and  who  can 
claim  to  be  in  a  comprehensive  sense. 
Christian  "scholars,"  there  are  five  to 
one  in  this  country  against  the  Destruc- 
tive Criticism. 

The  ablest  thinker  that  I  knew  in  my 
early  and  mature  life  was  President  Ju- 
lius Seelye,  of  Amherst  College,  the  best 
able  to  formulate  a  proposition  that  had 
to  do  with  a  question  of  evidence.  We 
were  students  together.  As  he  was  near- 
ing  the  close  of  the  voyage  of  life,  he 
said  to  me:  "I  have  spent  two  years  on 
this  subject,  and  I  find  the  evidence  is 
utterly  inadequate  to  sustain  the  alle- 
gation." And  yet  we  are  constantly  con- 
fronted by  those  who  are  so  positive  in 
their  assertions  that  they  remind  us  of 
the  famous  edict  that  was  issued  from 
Threadneedle  Street  by  the  Nine  Tailors, 
"We,  the  People  of  England!"  We  may 
safely  put  up  against  the  writings  of 
Wellhausen  and  the  recent  works  of  De- 
litzsch  the  works  of  Prof.  Fritz  Hommel, 
and  that  masterly  work  of  Frank  Moller, 
published  by  Revell,  which  is  an  abso- 
lutely decisive  weapon  against  the  new 
Deuteronomic  theory.  We  cite  as  against 
men  like  Driver  and  Cheyne,  a  name 
that  is  hardly  ever  mentioned  among  us, 
the  oldest  Hebrew  scholar  in  Great 
Britain,  Dr.  Stanley  Leathes,  who  has 
utterly  demolished,  on  the  ground  of  ver- 
bal comparison,  the  claim  of  the  Two 
Isaiahs;  and  as  against  George  Adam 
Smith  we  name  such  a  man  as  John  Ur- 
quhart;  and,  even  in  this  country  far  and 
wide,  the  silent  scholars  that  have  not 
yet  been  counted.  We  expect  that  they 
will  be  counted  before  the  verdict  is 
reached.  These  men  have  been  quietly 
resting,  not  realizing  that  there  was  such 


an  emergency  upon  the  Church  of  God. 

I  say  then  that  the  first  thing  is  to 
show  that  weight  of  scholarship  is  in 
favor  of  the  traditional  view,  the  only 
view  that  is  credible,  because  it  is  in  no 
other  way  possible  in  history  that  such  a 
method  of  construction  of  the  Word  of 
God  should  have  been  realized. 

I  want  also  to  have  the  people  under- 
stand— and  that  has  been  brought  out 
in  this  meeting — that  it  is  the  testimony 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  is  im- 
peached in  this  crisis,  and  the  point  of 
my  assertion  is  this:  four  hundred  times 
as  Bishop  Ellicott  has  shown,  the  Old 
Testament  is  cited  with  the  approval  of 
ihe  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  If  He  was  by  a 
kenotic  process  emptied  of  His  knowl- 
edge in  respect  to  so  plain  a  subject  as 
His  Father's  Book,  upon  which  He  tes- 
tified, what  value  has  His  assertive 
knowledge  on  any  subject  whatsoever? 
If,  however, — as  was  said  by  one  of  the 
professors  in  an  institution  on  the  neigh- 
boring hill — the  critics  will  frankly  tell 
us  that  He  did  not  know,  then  I  say, 
What  did  He  know?  If  He  was  ignorant 
of  knowledge  which  in  that  age  was 
within  the  range  of  ordinary  human 
faculties,  how  shall  He  tell  us  of  things 
divine  and  eternal?  And  how  did  He 
know  that  God  so  loved  the  world  that 
He  gave  His  only  Begotten  Son?  I  tell 
you,  brethren,  that  when  Jesus  Christ 
has  been  thus  discredited,  the  very  be- 
ing of  a  gracious  God  has  been  obscured; 
for  Nature  tells  nothing  of  the  love  of 
God.  I  am  afraid  of  Nature;  I  tremble 
at  its  convulsions.  I  am  overwhelmed 
at  the  confusion  that  everywhere  reigns 
around  us.  It  is,  in  many  of  its  aspects, 
a  world  of  gloom  and  pain  and  death, 
and  it  is  only  Jesus,  the  Resurrection 
and  the  Life,  the  Brightness  of  the  Fa- 
ther's Glory,  that  has  taught  Christen- 
dom that  there  is  a  God  of  Grace  and 
Mercy,  who  forgiveth  sin.  Now,  let  it  be 
understood  that  it  is  the  very  being  of 
God  as  God,  and  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
and  Savior,  Jesus  Christ,  that  is  in- 
volved in  this  controversy;  for  in  im- 
peaching His  testimony  in  regard  to 
common  things.  He  is  discredited  at  ev- 
ery point. 

One  thing  more,  and  that  is  the  qucs- 


41 


tion  of  honesty.    We  are  living  in  a  time 
that  to  old-fashioned  men  seems  perilous. 
There  are  scenes  and  transactions  in  the 
financial  world  that  are  simply  appalling 
in  contrast  with  the  standards  of  forty 
and   fifty   years    since.     And   there   has 
come  over  the  ministry  of  the  Church  in 
many   quarters   a   sentiment   of  conceal- 
ment and  repression  which  is  as  a  taint 
upon   character,   and  which  justifies  the 
suspicion   of  the  people  that  the  minis- 
ters  do   not   mean   just   what   they   say 
when  they  speak  of  the  threatenings  of 
the  Word  of  God.     Here,  for  instance, 
is  an  illustration:  there  is  in  this  city  a 
minister — whether  he  is  an  Episcopalian, 
Methodist,    or    Presbyterian,    does    not 
matter — who    confessed    that    when    he 
used  the  Apostles'  Creed  he  did  it  with 
mental    reservation,    saying    to    himself, 
when  he  came  to  the  words  "Jesus  Christ 
who  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,"  "as 
they  say,"  and  applying  the  same  inter- 
polation  at   the    words   "rose   from   the 
dead."     Brethren,   a   man   who    can    do 
that  has  set  his  foot  in  the  way  of  hell! 
That    is    blasphemy    against    the    Holy 
Ghost!     I  trust  that  there  are  but  few 
such;  and  yet  Canon  Freemantle  did  not 
hesitate  about  a  year  ago^  in  a  conven- 
tion of  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  En- 
gland, to  declare  that  he  disbelieved  in 
the  Virgin  Birth;  and  yet  the  next  day  he 
recited  the  Apostles'  Creed! 

Can  we  wonder  that  crime  has  ap- 
peared in  the  community,  and  that  men 
find  excuse  for  easy  virtue,  when  the 
very  teachers  of  the  righteousness  of 
God  are  willing  to  descend  to  such  con- 
cealment? 

I  would  ask  you  also  to  realize  that 
this  attack  comes  upon  us,  not  from 
without,  but  from  within.  For  nineteen 
centuries  the  Church  of  God  has  been 
a  Warrior  Church.  Through  controversy 
and  through  conflict  it  has  come  up  out 
of  the  wilderness  leaning  on  the  arm  of 
the  Beloved.  But,  here  today  in  the 
very  midst  of  us,  is  a  condition  of  trea- 
son; and  it  is  a  treason  that  is  using  the 
resources  of  the  Church,  the  salaries  of 
her  ministers,  and  the  sacred  endow- 
ments established  by  the  sainted  ones 
who  are  now  in  the  presence  of  God. 
What  honest  man  can  look  at  Andover 


and  not  be  ashamed  that  such  things 
should  be  possible?  And  when  we  think 
of  those  who  have  endowed  our  semin- 
aries, who  have  wrung  oftentimes  from 
their  poverty  the  sums  by  which  they 
have  been  enabled  to  make  their  gifts, 
and  realize  that  some  of  these  institu- 
tions are  consecrated  to  the  destruction 
of  that  which  they  were  intended  to  up- 
build; then  we  feel  that  the  emergency 
that  is  upon  us  is  altogether  unlike  that 
of  the  continuous  conflict  of  the  Church 
of  God  with  foes  that  are  avowedly  such. 
Celsus  and  Porphyry,  Bolingbroke  and 
Rousseau,  Thomas  Paine  and  Robert  In- 
gersoll, — they  have  called  for  no  Bible 
League,  for  they  are  enemies  outside  our 
lines;  and  they  have  gone  to  their  own 
place,  and  no  one  reads  their  books.  But 
when  we  have  to  do  with  those  who  are 
questioning  about  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New,  about  Jesus  Christ  Him- 
self, deceiver  or  deceived,  then  we  feel 
that  the  time  has  come  for  the  Church 
to  realize  that  these  are  not  friends,  but 
enemies,  that  are  in  the  midst  of  us. 

And   we   shall  stand  in  all  fidelity  to 
this  work  that  we  have  thus  begun.    The 
world  will  not  love  this  Bible.    The  world 
will  not  love  the  Christ  of  the  atoning 
sacrifice;   but  if  the   time   should   come 
when  the  Presbyterian  ministry  becomes 
degenerate  and  unworthy,  and  when  the 
Methodist  and  the  Baptist  cease  to  pro- 
claim the  old  doctrine  of  expiation  and 
redemption,  then  we  shall  find  that,  sad 
as  it  may  be,  there  will  be  a  mighty  tide 
of  human  souls  that  will   hasten,   if  no 
other   way  is   seen,  to  the   old   historic 
Church,  in  spite  of  all  that  there  is  cor- 
rupt therein,  and   that   Roman    Catholic 
Church,    that    has   been    faithful    to   the 
Word  of  God,  notwithstanding  all  that 
she  has  added  to  it,  woiiTd  be  the  last 
refuge  of  despair.     But  this  will  not  be 
the  outcome  of  the  conflict.     We  expect 
the   triumphant   on-going  of  this   work; 
we  expect  to  enroll  on  our  list  of  mem- 
bers   Archbishop     Farley,    because     his 
Church  and  he  stand  for  the  Bible;    we 
expect  and  confidently  call  upon  Bishop 
Potter,    whose     church     establishes     its 
Scripture  lessons  for  every  day  and  ev- 
ery   Sabbath    from    the    Old   Testament 
and  the  New,  to  which  they  are  solemn- 


43 


ly  pledged, — we  expect  that  they  will 
join  in  some  sense  this  movement;  and 
that  all  these  evangelical  leaders,  with 
the  multitude  of  the  church  who  are  pre- 
paring to  stand  on  High  in  the  blood- 
washed  throng,  will  be  with  us  in  heart 


and  spirit,  if  not  by  the  actual  enrollment 
of  their  names.  Let  us  remember  that 
the  power  of  God  will  be  our  strength  in 
this  movement,  and  that  it  is  our  simple 
purpose  to  uphold  the  Word  of  God  that 
liveth  and  abideth  forever. 


President  Hall:  The  last  of  the  speak- 
ers at  this  session  is  the  Rev.  William 
T.  Sabine,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  Reformed 


Episcopal  Church,  and  Rector  of  the 
First  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  of 
this  City,  who  will  now  address  us. 


ADDRESS    OF     BISHOP     SABINE 


Mr.  Chairman  and  Fellow  Christian 
Friends:  The  time  for  lunch  has  come 
and  we  are  all  pretty  tired  after  this 
feast  of  reason  and  this  flow  of  soul, 
which  have  been  most  delightfully  encour- 
aging and  edifying;  and  so  I  feel  sure 
that  the  best  thing  for  me  to  do  now  is 
just  to  offer  a  little  prayer  that  I  have 
always  prized  in  our  Liturgy,  a  prayer 
for  the  Bible  that  is  very  precious  to  us 
all.  I  would  like  to  say  much,  but  I 
will  just  say  how  glad  I  am  to  look  into 
the  faces  of  so  many  true  friends  of  the 


old  Bible,  who  stand  fast  and  firm  for 
the  Book  in  its  integrity.  Now,  let  us 
pray: 

"Blessed  Lord,  who  hast  caused  the 
Holy  Scriptures  to  be  written  for  our 
learning,  grant  that  we  may  in  such  wise 
hear  them,  read,  mark,  learn  and  inward- 
ly digest  them,  that  by  the  patience  and 
comfort  of  Thy  H'oly  Word,  we  may 
embrace  and  ever  hold  fast  that  blessed 
hope  of  everlasting  life,  which  Thou  hast 
given  in  Thy  Sion,  our  Savior,  Jesus 
Christ.     Amen." 


President  H'all:  In  concluding  this 
session  I  would  invite  your  attention 
to  the  program  for  the  afternoon 
session.  Remember  that  the  session  be- 
gins promptly  at  half-past  two.  The 
topic  is  "Groundlessness  of  the  Present 
Rationalistic  Claims."  The  first  special 
topic  is  "The  Identity  of  the  Present 
Views  with  Those  Propagated  One  Hun- 
dred Years  Ago."  The  second  special 
topic  is  "The  Uncritical  Character  of  the 
Present  Application  of  the  Rationalistic 
Principles  to  the  New  Testament."  Upon 
the  first  special  topic  we  shall  have  an 
address  by  Prof.  Howard  Osgood,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  of  the  Rochester  Theological 
Seminary,  ex-Member  of  the  American 
Bible  Revision  Committee.  Upon  the 
second  special  topic,  Chicago  will  be 
heard  from  in  an  address  by  Reverend  R. 
F.  Weidner,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  President  of 
the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Church  of  Chicago.  Af- 


ter that.  Prof.  Edmund  J.  Wolf,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  and  Prof.  Jesse  D.  Thomas,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  and  Rev.  Edward  P.  Ingersoll, 
D.D.,  Secretary  of  the  American  Bible 
Society,  will  address  us.  Now  you  see 
we  have  a  very  attractive  program, 
and  I  trust  that  not  only  those  who  are 
present  this  morning  will  find  it  conven- 
ient to  be  present  this  afternoon,  but 
many  others. 

I  would  like  also  to  announce  that  the 
Rev.  Dr.  George  C.  Lorimer,  who  was  to 
have  addressed  us  this  morning,  has  been 
detained  by  the  illness  of  his  wife. 

The  devotional  exercises  will  now  be 
conducted,  as  the  other  devotional  exer- 
cises have  been,  by  Rev.  Dr.  Burrell. 

Dr.  Burrell:  Sing  Hymn  No.  84,  the 
last  two  verses: 

"Word  of  the  everlasting  God, 
Will  of  His  glorious  Son." 

Benediction  by  Rev.  Dr.  Burrell. 


43 


s;hircl  (General  Copic 

"GROUNDLESSNESS.  OF    THE    PRESENT    RATIONALISTIC 

CLAIMS  " 


WEDNESDAY    AFTERNOON    SESSION,    MAY    4 

3  P.  M.     President  William  Phillips  Hall  in  the  Chair 


Dr.  Burrell:  Let  us  sing  No.  ^^, 
"I  love  the  volume  of  Thy  word." 

Let  us  turn  to  Psalm  cxix.  Read  res- 
ponsively. 

Rev.  Dr.  Wilson  Phraner  will  lead  us 
in  prayer. 

Prayer  by  Dr.  Phraner:  Almighty  God, 
our  Heavenly  Father,  we  invoke  Thy 
presence,  and  the  guidance  of  Thy  good 
Spirit  as  again  we  are  assembled  in  this 
place  to  meditate  upon  Thy  precious 
truth,  in  sympathy  with  its  teachings,  and 
to  testify  of  our  appreciation  of  the  pre- 
ciousness  of  its  revelation.  We  give  Thee 
thanks  for  Thy  Word,  Thy  Word  of 
everlasting  truth,  revealing  to  us  God 
and  His  Being,  His  character.  His  at- 
tributes, the  principles  of  His  govern- 
ment and  the  purposes  of  His  grace.  Es- 
pecially reveal  to  us  Thy  dear  Son,  our 
Savior,  and  Thy  divine  purpose  through 
Him  toward  a  world  lying  in  sin  and 
wickedness.  We  thank  Thee  for  the  rev- 
elation of  the  blessed  Holy  Spirit,  whose 
office  work  it  is  to  take  of  the  things  of 
Christ  and  reveal  them  unto  us.  Open 
our  minds  and  hearts  more  and  more  to 
receive  the  instructions  of  Thy  precious 
Word.  We  thank  Thee  for  all  the  peace, 
all  the  joy,  all  the  comfort,  all  the  hope 
which  Thy  Word  has  brought  to  us  in  our 
lives.  We  thank  Thee  that  we  may  rest 
upon  it  with  confidence  and  rejoice  in 
it  as  the  truth  of  God,  abiding  evermore. 
And  now  direct  in  all  the  discussions  of 
the  hour.  In  all  that  is  said  may  Thy 
Word  be  honored.  May  Thy  name  be 
glorified.  May  cur  minds  be  stored  with 
Thy  truth,  our  souls  uplifted  into  sym- 
pathy with  God  and  the  purposes  of  His 
grace,  and  love  for  Jesus  Christ.     Bless 


us,  everyone.  Bless  this  organization,  O 
God,  and  prosper  it  in  the  work  on  be- 
half of  which  Thy  saints  are  banded  to- 
gether, and  lead  in  such  manner  by  Thy 
Spirit  that  Thy  servants  shall  indeed  re- 
alize that  God  is  with  them,  going  be- 
fore them  and  opening  their  way,  and 
showing  them  the  path  of  duty  and  of 
privilege  in  Thy  service.  And  to  Thy 
name  shall  be  the  praise.     Amen. 

Dr.  Burrell:  Sing  again  No.  80  to  the 
old  tune  of  Uxbridge.  Anyone  who  does 
not  know  Uxbridge  wants  to  begin  over 
again. 

"The  heavens  declare  Thy  glory,  Lord! 
In  every  star  Thy  wisdom  shines." 

President  Hall:  In  opening  this  ses- 
sion of  the  Conference,  I  regret  that  we 
are  obliged  to  state  that  Rev.  Dr.  How- 
ard Osgood,  who  hoped  to  address  us 
at  this  time,  is  unable,  on  account  of  the 
frail  condition  of  his  health,  to  be  pres- 
ent; but  we  are  not  to  be  disappointed 
in  the  message  he  was  to  bring  us.  He 
sent  that  on,  and  I  have  asked  Dr.  Greg- 
ory, the  General  Secretary  of  the  League, 
if  he  will  not  kindly  read  it.  Professor 
Osgood  is  known  throughout  the  world, 
as  a  former  Professor  in  Rochester  The- 
ological Seminary,  ex-Member  of  the 
American  Revision  Committee,  and  an 
associate  of  the  late  Professor  Thayer, 
and  Professors  Charles  M.  Mead  and 
George  E.  Day  in  the  preparation  of  the 
American  Standard  Revised  Version.  I 
am  sure  that  we  shall  be  most  intensely 
interested  in  the  message  from  this 
mighty  man  of  God,  this  great  student 
of  God's  Holy  Word,  and  this  great  ex- 
pert in  the  original  languages  of  the 
Scriptures.  We  will  now  listen  to  the 
reading  of  his  paper  by  Dr.   Gregory. 


44 


J^irst  Special  2;opic« 

"EXPLODED  THEORIES  REVIVED  TO  BE  AGAIN  EXPLODED" 


PAPER     OF     REV.     DR.     HOWARD     OSGOOD 
"The  Identity  of  the  Present  Views  with  those  Propagated  One  Hundred  Years  Ago" 


[Dr.  Gregory:  Allow  me  to  say  by  way 
of  preface,  that  when  Dr.  Osgood  found 
that  his  physician  would  not  permit  him 
to  be  present,  he  wrote  that  he  had 
shortened  his  paper,  boiling  it  down  as 
rnuch  as  possible,  because  he  knew  that 
a  read  paper  does  not  hold  the  interest 
as  does  an  address.  He  has  given  us  a 
brief,  and  yet  very  conclusive,  argument, 
proving  his  position  absolutely.] 

Outside  of  experts  the  people  know  no- 
thing and  care  less  for  scholastic  pro- 
cesses. They  wish  only  to  know  results. 
What  the  common  sense  results  of  much 
criticism  of  the  Bible  are  today,  we  are 
told  by  professors,  preachers,  popular 
writers  by  scores.  A  Canon  of  West- 
minster and  a  popular  preacher  in  Lon- 
don tells  us  in  The  Contemporary  Re- 
view, that  the  Old  Testament  has  lost 
all  influence  because  of  "the  absurdities 
and  moral  crudities,"  "the  incredible, 
puerile  or  demoralizing  narratives,"  and 
that  the  New  Testament  "will  have  to  go 
the  way  of  the  Old  Testament  prodi- 
gies." The  only  salvage  from  this  wreck 
will  be  the  moral  precepts.  The  most 
learned  of  the  destructive  critics  in  Scot- 
land teaches  that  the  New  Testament  has 
no  historical  foundation.  Men  of  Cam- 
bridge and  Oxford  and  of  equal  sets  of 
learning  in  our  land  certify  to  us  that 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  contain 
a  mass  of  fables,  myths,  legends. 

When  we  ask  to  see  the  proofs  neces- 
sitating these  results  we  are  told  that 
they  are: 

1.  Historical  and  chronological. 

2.  The  constant  contradictions  found 
everywhere  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments. 


3.  The  disorderly  arrangement  of  each 
book  and  of  all  the  books. 

4.  Evidences  that  the  books  were  not 
written  by  the  authors  assigned  to  them 
and  long  after  the  times  narrated. 

5.  The  low  morality  in  precept  and 
practice  and  the  low  view  of  God. 

6.  The  incredible  claims  made  for  Je- 
sus Christ,  His  birth,  miracles,  resurrec- 
tion and  deity. 

These  proofs  are  said  to  be  the  out- 
come of  the  present  day  applications  of 
the  true  canons  of  historical  and  literary 
criticism,  the  fruit  of  a  late  advanced 
scholarship  that  is  now  a  science.  With 
these  new  evidences  before  it,  we  are 
told,  modern  reason  and  philosophy  can 
no  longer  hold  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word 
of  God.  That  this  is  the  much  vaunted 
modern  view  taught  by  learned  men  in 
Europe,  Great  Britain  and  America,  is 
too  well  known  to  need  the  superabund- 
ance of  references  ready  to  prove  it. 

Let  us  look  back  one  hundred  years. 
Our  country  had  just  come  out  of  its 
long  sufferings  in  the  war  with  England. 
A  series  of  changes  had  for  more  than 
a  century  been  turning  many  ministers 
and  churches  from  their  earlier  purity 
of  doctrines  and  life.  The  revivals  led 
by  Whitefield  from  Maine  to  Georgia, 
through  thirty  years,  had  separated  the 
churches  of  all  denominations  into  those 
that  favored  and  those  that  opposed 
evangelistic  efforts.  The  long  Frencii 
war  and  the  Revolution  had  turned  the 
thoughts  of  the  people. to  the  desperate 
needs  and  sufferings,  the  wild  passions 
aroused  by  conflicts.  To  be  our  friend 
when  our  fortunes  were  darkest  was  the 
title  to  unbounded  gratitude  and  influ- 
ence. 


45 


We  had  two  such  friends.  Thomas 
Paine  came  to  us  from  England  with  a 
recommendation  from  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin, and  in  the  well-nigh  hopeless  first 
years  of  the  Revolution  he  stirred  the 
country  and  nerved  it  to  the  pledge  of 
all  its  resources  by  his  popular  writ- 
ings. France  by  her  help  enabled  us  to 
win  victory,  and  for  twenty  years,  in- 
cluding the  time  of  her  own  revolution, 
the  influence  of  France,  her  ways,  her 
thoughts,  her  writers,  was  pre-eminent 
in  the  United  States.  So  great  was  that 
influence  that  it  blinded  men,  otherwise 
sane,  to  the  tyranny  and  murders  and 
banishment  of  all  religion  by  the  French 
revolutionists.  Americans  wore  the  tri- 
color and  sang  popular  songs  to  the 
glory  of  France  and  to  the  reviling  of 
Washington.  The  great  popular  and  sci- 
entific writers  of  France  were  the  teach- 
ers of  Europe  and  were  to  a  man  the 
outspoken  Iocs  of  the  Bible.  Their  works 
were  largely  read  and  accepted  in  Amer- 
ica as  the  best  exponents  of  the  latest 
science  and  literature.  How  far  their  in- 
fluence reached  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
students  in  college  called  themselves  Vol- 
taire, Diderot,  d'Alembert,  etc.,  and  less 
than  one  in  a  hundred  in  Harvard,  Yale, 
Williams  and  Princeton  were  willing  to 
profess  themselves  Christians. 

Thomas  Paine  the  friend  of  America 
went  to  France  and  from  the  centre  of 
her  revolution,  in  1794-6,  wrote  and  dedi- 
cated and  sent  by  thousands  to  America 
his  "Age  of  Reason."  It  had  immense 
vogue  for  a  time  and  was  spread  from 
Maine  to  Georgia,  from  Massachusetts 
to  Kentucky,  commended  by  Paine's 
reputation  as  a  friend  to  America.  The 
boys  in  the  barns  read  and  believed  in 
it.  The  strength  of  the  book  was  in  its 
plain,  vigorous,  often  coarse  English, 
level  to  the  common  understanding,  its 
apparent  earnestness  and  the  clear  state- 
ment without  any  evasion  or  dissimula- 
tion of  his  conclusions.  These  conclu- 
sions follow  quick  upon  his  premises. 
This  small  work  is  the  shortest,  strong- 
est popular  display  of  reasons  for  re- 
jecting the  whole  Bible  as  "fabulous  and 
false"  that  had  ever  appeared.  That 
which  gave  the  book  its  strength  at  first 


brought  it  many  republications  through 
the  century  until  within  a  few  years, 
since  which  it  has  been  published  in  a 
splendid  edition  and  praised  by  its  edi- 
tor as  one  of  the  great  books  of  the 
world. 

The  method  Paine  follows  is  the  appli- 
cation of  what  he  thinks  the  simple  rules 
of  history,  literature  and  science  to  the 
contents  of  the  Bible.  And  the  points 
he  makes  against  the  Bible  are: 

1.  The  "historical  and  chronological" 
evidence.^  pp.  97-100,  105,  iii,  119. 

2.  The  "contradictions"  found  every- 
where, pp.  42,  IDS,  113,  134-6,  153-175,  222. 

3.  The  "disorderly  arrangement,"  pp. 
99f,  119,  I29f,  156,  222. 

4.  The  books  were  not  written  by  the 
authors  assigned  to  them,  pp.  93,  104-106, 
156-168,  but  long  after  the  times  nar- 
rated, pp.  41,  93,  109,  III,  I56f,  i62f. 

5.  The  low  morality  and  the  ascription 
to  God  of  wicked  and  unjust  words 
and  deeds,  pp.  90,  96,  103,  106,  113,  186- 
188. 

6.  The  incredible  claims  made  for 
Christ,  particularly  as  to  His  birth.  His 
miracles.  His  resurrection.  His  deity,  pp. 
77%  152-175,  417. 

Paine  concludes  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  "a  history  of  the  grossest  vices 
and  a  collection  of  the  most  paltry  tales," 
p.  38,  and  that  the  New  Testament  is 
full  of  "glaring  absurdities,  contradic- 
tions, falsehoods,"  pp.  167,  192,  and  there- 
fore is  "fabulous  and  false,"  pp.  133,  153, 
419. 

Paine's  method  and  main  points  are 
identical  with  those  of  the  destructive 
critics  of  the  Bible  today.  In  method  and 
main  points  there  has  been  no  advance 
since  1796.  There  have  been  changes  in 
mere  externals  but  none  in  essentials. 
There  is  one  advantage  wholly  on  Paine's 
side.  He  wrote  so  that  he  could  not  be 
misunderstood  and  he  drew  the  only 
possible  conclusion  from  his  method  and 
main  points,  that  the  whole  Bible  is  a 
"pious  fraud,"  "spurious,"  "an  impos- 
ture," and  "a  lie,"  and  that  "I  can  write 
a  better  book  myself,"  p.  222. 

The  night  of  infidelity  and  the  influ- 

'The  references  are  to  Volume  4  of  Paine's  writings, 
edit,  of  i8q6. 


46 


ence  of  Voltaire  and  Paine  was  swept 
away  by  the  Spirit  of  God  in  a  series  of 
revivals  of  earnest  faith  and  life  in 
Christ.  These  began  in  1792  and  for 
forty  years  spread  through  all  the  States, 
bringing  into  activity  the  positive  Chris- 
tian men  and  women  who  began  and 
maintained  missionary  societies,  Bible 
and  Tract  societies,  Sunday  Schools  and 
all  the  decided  works  of  faith  and  love 
to  Christ  that  have  grown  with  the  cen- 
tury and  have  been  our  precious  in- 
heritance. 

Paine's  book  in  1796  taught  nothing 
new.  Any  one  who  is  acquainted  with 
the  learned  and  popular  destructive  crit- 
icism in  England  from  Herbert  to  Hume, 
in  Europe  from  Spinoza  to  Semler,  in 
France  from  Rabelais  to  Voltaire,  will 
see  in  Paine's  book  nothing  more  than 
a  strong,  popular  condensation  of  the 
same  arguments  employed  by  all  those 
writers.  Nor  were  these  predecessors  of 
Paine  pioneers,  for  "The  Three  Impos- 
tors," and  Faustus  and  Julian  and  Por- 
phyry  and   a   host   of   others   in    earlier 


centuries,  had  passed  over  the  same 
ground  and  reached  the  same  conclu- 
sions. Nor  were  these  the  first.  The 
most  sharp-witted  and  learned  men  in 
the  Bible  of  their  day  confronted  the 
Son  of  God  and  denied  His  teaching  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  His  claim  that 
He  was  the  Son  of  God,  the  Christ,  to  be 
believed  and  honored  equally  with  the 
Father;  and  they  charged  Him  with  be- 
ing a  blasphemer,  a  servant  of  the  devil, 
a  deceiver,  because  being  only  a  man  He 
made  Himself  God.  And  on  these  grounds 
they  condemned  and  crucified  Him.  The 
twenty-seven  accusations  against  Christ 
by  the  chief  priests  and  learned  scribes 
cover  the  whole  possible  range  of  des- 
tructive criticism  of  the  Bible  and  of 
Christ.  From  that  day  no  really  new 
unbelief  has  been  invented.  The  for- 
tress defines  the  lines  of  attack.  As 
the  essential  lines  of  the  strategy  of 
war  have  always  been  the  same,  the 
essential  lines  of  destructive  attack  on 
the  Bible  remain  the  same,  old  as 
Eden. 


President  Hall:  As  the  subject  dis- 
cussed by  Professor  Wolf  falls  into  line 
with  that  treated  by  Dr.  Osgood,  I  shall 
take  the  liberty  of  calling  for  it  before 
the  address  of  President  Weidner,  whose 
name  appears  next  on  the  program,  but 
who  is  to  discuss  a  different  phase  of  the 


proposition  before  us.  It  gives  me  pleas- 
ure to  introduce  to  you  Professor  Ed- 
mund J.  Wolf,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  the  Theo- 
logical Seminary  at  Gettysburg,  Pa.,  and 
President  of  the  Lutheran  General  Syn- 
od. Professor  Wolf  will  now  address 
you. 


ADDRESS  OF  REV.  DR.  EDMUND  J.  WOLF 
"The  Tubingen  Cyclone" 


The  Sacred  Scriptures  have  weathered 
many  a  tempest.  Sixty  years  ago  they 
encountered  a  storm  so  fierce  that  timid 
minds  listening  to  its  roar  almost  gave 
up  for  lost  the  vessel  which  bears  in  its 
cabin  our  Lord  and  Savior.  The  waves 
of    criticism    threatened    to    engulf    the 


body  of  the  New  Testament.  All  the 
resources  of  historical  learning,  all  the 
weapons  of  philological  lore,  all  the  im- 
plications of  philosophical  postulates, 
were  combined  for  its  destruction.  The 
students,  the  experts,  the  specialists,  the 
masters,  all  joined  in  decrying  the  tradf- 


47 


tional  acceptance  of  the  earliest  Chris- 
tian literati're.  And  if  some  courageous 
Scribe  still  dared  to  believe  in  them,  he 
at  once  became  the  target  for  ridicule. 
There  was  a  consensus  of  critics,  a  rever- 
berating chorus  of  scholars.  The  attack 
on  the  Scriptures  was  all  the  'rage — for, 
be  it  remembered,  the  tyranny  of  fashion 
rules  the  world  of  learning  as  it  does  the 
world  of  dress.  The  Colossus  of  Tii- 
bingen  bestriding  all  the  world  of  Bibli- 
cal and  historical  learning  set  the  pace, 
and  lesser  minds,  as  usual,  aspired  to  be 
in  distinguished  company.  If  American 
scholars  did  not  generally  join  the  pro- 
cession, it  was  because  America  was  not 
then  so  much  given  to  foreign  importa- 
tions. 

A  bull  of  scholastic  infallibility  expur- 
gated everything  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment excepting  four  Epistles  of  St.  Paul 
and  the  Book  of  Revelation,  the  former 
representing  the  anti-Jewish  and  liberal 
Christianity,  of  which  Paul  was  regarded 
the  founder,  the  latter  representing  the 
original  Jewish  and  contracted  Christian- 
ity propagated  by  Jesus  and  the  Twelve. 

All  other  writings  previously  regarded 
as  the  works  of  Holy  Evangelists  and 
Apostles  were  ascribed  to  a  gang  of 
counterfeiters,  who  blended  the  villainy 
of  forgery  with  their  spiritual  unction. 
They  were  fabrications  stamped  with 
honored  names  for  the  purpose  of  secur- 
ing in  the  contemporary  Church  Apos- 
tolic sanction  for  their  contents.  They 
consisted,  it  was  claimed,  of  unhistorical 
myths  and  legends,  heretical  romances, 
partisan  manipulations,  clumsy  patch- 
work and  clever  redactions,  having  about 
as  much  basis  of  fact  as  may  be  found 
in  a  historical  novel. 

To  account  for  the  origin  of  these 
forgeries  and  their  reception  as  genuine 
Apostolic  productions,  the  imagination 
of  the  critics  audaciously  invented  a  pe- 
culiar theory  of  the  conditions  of  Primi- 
tive Christianity — not  scrupling  to  at- 
tempt a  reconstruction  of  Primitive 
Christian  history.  They  assumed  a  fun- 
damental antagonism  between  the 
primeval  Christian  belief  and  the  subse- 
quent Gentile  type  of  Christianity;  a 
radical  difference  between  the  early  "Ju- 


daic Socinianism"  and  the  later  doctrinal 
innovation  which  essentially  changed  this 
religion  in  heart  and  soul;  a  bitter  hostil- 
ity between  the  party  which  adhered  to 
Peter  and  the  other  original  Apostles, 
and  that  which  adhered  to  Paul  and  his 
universalistic  claims.  In  the  face  of 
Galatians  ii.,  conceded  to  be  genuine, 
Paul's  Gospel  was  declared  to  be  "an-' 
other  Gospel,  essentially  different  from,' 
and  fundamentally  subversive  of  that 
which  the  Twelve  had  originally  delivered 
as  from  the  Lord;"  and  so  determined 
was  the  opposition  to  this  Gospel  that  a 
Counter-Mission  was  organized  at  Jeru- 
salem which  came  near  ruining  the  work 
of  Paul. 

The  Pauline  revolution,  changing  the 
original  nature  of  Christianity,  having 
for  a  second  time  gained  the  upper  hand 
in  the  Christian  community, 

"There  grew  into  its  mind  an  essen- 
tially mistaken  view  of  the  original  his- 
tory of  Christianity,  which  view  em- 
bodied itself  in  our  existing  Scriptures, 
conformably  to  the  revolutionary  Pauline 
doctrine  of  the  religion;  so  that  the 
forged  Scriptures  and  the  reception  of 
them  by  Christians  all  over  the  world, 
are  accounted  for  by  operation  of  that 
mistaken  view."  (McGregor,  "Hist,  of 
N.  T.  Apologetics,"  p.  229.) 

These  documents,  then,  bearing  the 
venerable  names  of  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke,  John,  Paul,  Peter  and  James  were 
all  resolved  into  "tendency  writings." 
They  were  not  history  pure  and  simple, 
but  an  adjustment  of  history  to  a  doc- 
trinal and  factional  aim,  in  the  interest 
of  one  or  the  other  party,  or  of  a  com- 
promise between  the  two.  They  were 
pseudo-Apostolic  tracts,  exhibiting  vari- 
ous phases  of  the  supposed  situation, 
some  polemical,  like  the  third  Gospel, 
which  emanating  from  the  Pauline  side 
distorted  history  in  a  way  to  favor  the 
Gentile  claims;  some  irenical,  seeking  to 
bridge  the  gulf  between  the  two  parties, 
like  The  Acts,  which  aims  to  harmonize 
Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity  by  liber- 
alizing Peter  and  Judaizing  Paul,  artfully 
concealing  the  differences  between  them. 

The  fourth  Gospel,  an  ideal  composi- 
tion of  some  great  unknown  religious  ge- 
nius, "completed  with  consummate  skill 


48 


the  unifying  process  about  the  middle  of 
the  second  century." 

Out  of  such  a  subjective  hodge-podge, 
exaggerating,  distorting,  manipulating, 
recasting  and  redacting  Primitive  Chris- 
tian history,  a  compound  of  fiction  and 
fraud  designed  to  further  the  views  and 
aims  of  some  tlieological  party,  grew  the 
orthodoxy  of  the  second  and  third  cen- 
turies. 

This  daring  exploit  of  historical  crit- 
icism was  motived  and  ruled  by  precon- 
ceived scientific  and  philosophical  theo- 
ries. Men  denouncing  the  dogmatism  of 
theologians  treated  the  world  to  a  spec- 
tacle of  the  dogmatism  of  critics,  their 
arguments  being  primarily  grounded  on 
the  negative  prejudgments,  that  miracles 
are  scientifically  impossible,  that  revela- 
tion, prophecy,  everything  supernatural, 
is  philosophically  incredible.  Nature  is 
all;  natural  development  accounts  for  all. 
Jehovah  must  keep  hands  ofT  the  system 
of  things —  this  was  the  foundation  as- 
sumption of  the  school  which  sought  to 
discredit  the  oracles  of  revelation  by  mak- 
ing  them  infamous   in  their  authorship. 

Baur  followed  the  Hegelian  Pantheism, 
"that  in  history  there  can  be  no  real  be- 
ginning, such  as  a  miracle  would  involve; 
that  in  all  seeming  history  there  in  fact 
is  only  an  absolute  continuity  of  evolu- 
tionary eventuation,  with  no  such  gap  or 
break  as  would  be  constituted  by  inter- 
vention of  a  will  or  existence  of  a  per- 
sonal free  agent."  This  determined 
avowedly  his  so-called  historical  criti- 
cism of  Primeval  Christianity  and  its  rec- 
ords—  "Atheistic  metaphysics  masquer- 
ading as  a  student  of  the  Bible  and  its 
history"! 

Here  is  the  true  inwardness  of  the 
Tiibingen  assault  upon  the  New  Testa- 
ment— the  scientific  conviction  that  any- 
thing supernatural  is  absolutely  incred- 
ible, inducing  an  intellectual  condition 
which  incapacitates  men  for  judging  fair- 
ly as  to  the  historical  reality  of  anything 
claiming  to  be  supernatural  —  the  as- 
sumption of  the  impossibility  of  mira- 
cles smiting  this  school  with  intellectual 
blindness,  disqualifying  them  for  weigh- 
ing evidences  in  proof  of  alleged  facts  at 
variance  with  their  prejudgments. 


Such  was  the  storm.  And  what  of  the 
result?  A  historical  episode!  A  remin- 
iscence! Yea,  the  very  memory  of  it  has 
almost  faded  away.  The  fantastical  hy- 
pothesis of  villainous  forgeries  imposed 
upon  the  whole  Christian  Church  long 
after  the  decease  of  their  alleged  authors, 
is  no  longer  accepted  by  any  school  of 
critics.  Before  the  titanic  leader  closed 
his  eyes  it  had  come  to  be  known  as  the 
Tubingen  fiasco  —  "defeated  along  the 
whole  line,"  retreating  before  the  fatal 
blows  of  sane  criticism  and  common 
sense,  and  leaving  unshaken  the  genuine- 
ness of  every  book  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  was  undisputed  at  the  close 
of  the  second  century  of  the  Christian 
Era.  All  that  survives  of  this  terrific 
blast  of  the  critics  is  here  and  there 
a  stray  "uncomprehending  echo  of  the 
long  silent  voice,  like  an  incoherent 
ghost  revisiting  the  glimpses  of  the 
moon."  Our  New  Testament  was  not 
submerged.  The  Word  of  God  did  not 
pass  away.  Per  contra  the  assaults  upon 
it  proved  to  be  of  signal  advantage  t<7' 
the  cause  of  Biblical  Science.  This  plow- 
ing through  it  deepened  and  cleansed  the 
soil.  The  thunder  cloud  dissolved  into 
a  gracious  rain.  The  fury  of  the  storm 
cleared  the  sky.  And  the  Tiibingen  col- 
lapse is  not  only  a  new  presumptive 
proof  of  what  the  Church  has  hitherto 
believed  concerning  the  Scriptures,  but 
it  has  been  made  the  occasion  for  a  new 
demonstration  of  the  genuine  Apostolic 
authorship  of  the  body  of  our  New  Tes- 
tament Scriptures. 

To  quote  Dr.  Schaff: 

"This  modern  Gnosticism  must  be  al- 
lowed to  have  done  great  service  to  Bib- 
lical and  historical  learning  by  removing 
old  prejudices,  opening  new  avenues  of 
thought,  bringing  to  light  the  immense 
fermentation  of  the  first  century,  stimu- 
lating research,  and  compelling  an  entire 
scientific  construction  of  the  history  of 
the  origin  of  Christianity  and  the  Church. 
The  result  will  be  a  deeper  and  fuller 
knowledge,  not  to  the  weakening,  but  to 
the  strengthening  of  our  faith." 

Says  MacGregor: 

"Not  only  have  all  the  learning,  abil- 
ity, and  unsparing  labor,  expended  on  the 
warfare  against  those  Scriptures,  left 
their  credit  unshaken,  solidly  established 
on  the  old  foundation  of  scholarly  his- 


49 


torical  judgment,  but  they  have  placed 
that  foundation  in  a  clearer  light.  And 
the  credit  that  thus  remains  unshaken  is 
necessarily  strengthened  by  the  failure 
to  shake  it — as  the  reputation  of  a  vet- 
eran pilot  is  raised  by  his  now  weather- 
ing all  the  storms  of  a  new  stormy  sea- 
son— as  new  storm  is  new  proof  that  a 
house  is  founded  on  the  rock." 

And  now  another  storm  is  raging,  an- 
other tidal  wave  is  beating  against  "the 
impregnable  rock  of  Scripture" — this 
time  lashing  the  other  side  of  Gibraltar. 
It  is  the  same  destructive  criticism,  only 
changing  the  point  of  attack — a  repeti- 
tion of  the  old  assumptions,  the  old 
aims,  the  old  charges,  the  old  methods, 
the  old  boasts,  the  old  arrogance,  the 
old  cocksureness,  which  characterized 
the  Tubingen  tempest. 

The  bulk  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures are  forgeries,  it  is  charged,  late 
productions  while  pretending  to  be  of 
early  origin  and  concealing  the  impos- 
ture by  the  invention  of  a  false  history. 
They  are  a  composite  of  myth  and  le- 
gend, of  fiction  and  fraud,  invention  and 
redaction — growing  out  of  natural  con- 
ditions and  revolutionizing  the  original 
religion. 

This  onslaught  is  in  turn  motived  by 
the  prepossessions  of  philosophy,  the 
incredulity  of  the  supernatural,  the  im- 
possibility of  any  such  thing  as  miracle, 
revelation  or  prophecy.  Negative  as- 
sumptions are  made  the  criterion  for 
determining  what  to  think  of  Scripture 
and  its  content.  All  must  be  accounted 
for  by  the  laws  of  humaa  development, 
the  fixed  continuity  of  nature.  We  have 
again  "the  blind  unreason  of  disbelief 
in  the  operative  being  of  God,"  "the  de- 
nial of  those  great  principles  whose  rec- 
ognition is  absolutely  necessary  to  a 
right  understanding  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment." 

And  it  may  be  said  of  the  present 
movement,  as  was  said  of  the  Tiibingen 
School:  "It  has  brought  into  the  assault 
its  own  resources  of  learning,  trained 


academical  acumen,  and  industry  such 
as  the  world  is  not  able  to  contain  the 
books  it  has  written" — and  it  has  capped 
the  climax  of  its  pretensions  by  the  un- 
scientific arrogation  of  infallibility  for 
Science! 

Our  limits  do  not  allow  us  to  account 
for  the  fiasco  of  the  Tiibingen  critics  or 
to  puncture  the  fallacies  of  their  succes- 
sors; but  since  these  are  rearing  the  same 
sort  of  superstructure  on  the  same  un- 
substantial foundations  on  which  was 
built  the  Tubingen  criticism,  the  un- 
sophisticated, inexorable  common  sense 
of  history  points  to  its  early  and  inev- 
itable downfall.  The  recollection  of  the 
Tiibingen  cyclone  removes  all  doubt 
over  the  result  of  the  modern  blast. 
The  evidences  of  its  failure  are  already 
apparent. 

Professor  Hommel,  once  in  full  sym- 
pathy with  the  modern  destructive 
school,  has  prophesied  its  collapse 
within  a  generation.  The  signs  of  dis- 
integration have  already  appeared.  The 
result,  he  holds,  may  give  us  some  mod- 
ifications of  the  traditional  view,  but 
will  not  be  a  patchwork — bits  of  verses 
taken  from  various  authors  at  various 
times.  The  Law  will  be  recognized  as 
of  Mosaic  origin — the  entire  Pentateuch 
as  emanating  from  the  same  age — and 
nothing  to  impair  the  authority  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  God's  revelation.  The 
result  to  the  Christian  cause  will,  there- 
fore, ultimately  be,  not  loss  but  gain, 
not  the  weakening  but  the  strengthen- 
ing of  the  foundations. 

Says  Dr.  MacGregor: 

"As  the  result  of  two  grand  experi- 
ments, which  are  exhaustive,  there  will 
be  not  only  an  addition  but  a  completion; 
there  will  have  been  completed  a  grand 
arch  of  demonstration  by  experimental 
proof:  a  fabric  whose  two  sides,  though 
separately  neither  of  them  should  be  able 
to  stand,  in  their  combination  may  be 
strong  as  the  mountains  round  about 
Jerusalem." 

"Das  Wort  sie  sollen  lassen  stehn!" 


SO 


Second  Special  dopic 

"NEW   UNCRITICAL   APPLICATIONS    OF    THE 

ISTIC     PRINCIPLES" 


RATIONAL- 


President  Hall:  The  question  was 
once  asked,  "Can  any  good  thing  come 
out  of  Nazareth?"  And  the  question 
can  quite  properly  be  asked,  with  good 
reason,  Can  anything  conservative  come 
out  of  Chicago?  I  am  happy  to  say  that 
something  conservative  can  come  out 
of  Chicago;  something  just  as  sound  and 
logical  in  every  way  as  comes  from  New 
York,  Richmond  or  Gettysburg,  can 
come    from    the    Windy    City.      I    have 


great  pleasure  in  introducing  to  you  a 
friend  from  Chicago,  a  thorough  stu- 
dent, and  the  well  known  author  of  many 
profound  Biblical  works,  in  the  person 
of  Rev.  Dr.  Revere  Franklin  Weidner, 
President  of  the  Theological  Seminary 
of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  in 
that  city.  He  will  speak  upon  another 
special  topic  that  is  just  now  coming  into 
great  prominence,  and  that  can  not  fail 
to  attract  increasing  attention. 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  WEIDNER 

"The  Uncritical  Character  of  the  Present   Application  of  the  Rationalistic  Princi- 
ples to  the  New  Testament" 


Mr.  President  and  Brethren:  I  had 
prepared  an  elaborate  address,  and  my 
manuscript  I  purposely  left  in  my  va- 
lise at  the  hotel;  I  thought  it  would 
be  safer  there.  If  you  will  pardon  me, 
I  want  to  be  perfectly  at  home,  and  I 
will  speak  as  I  do  in  my  classroom,  when 
fifty  young  men  are  listening  to  me. 

First  of  all,  I  will  express  to  you 
the  intensity  of  my  feeling  with  refer- 
ence to  this  whole  subject.  For  twenty- 
two  years  I  have  been  in  the  centre  of 
the  warfare,  both  in  the  Old  Testament 
fight  and  in  the  New  Testament  fight. 
It  has  been  my  peculiar  privilege,  and 
I  thank  God  for  the  opportunity,  to 
study  carefully  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
Hebrew,  and  the  New  Testament  in  the 
Greek.  For  many  years,  from  1882, 
in  all  the  earlier  movements,  when 
this  trouble  began,  my  specialty  was 
the  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew,  and 
at  the  same  time  the  New  Testament  in 
Greek,  and  I  know  whereof  I  speak.  I 
have  been  in  the  midst  of  the  battle,  and 
I  have  been  privately  and  publicly  at- 
tacked. 

The  saddest  thing  of  all  is  that  some 
of  my  dearest  friends  who,  at  one  time, 
were  professors  in  theological  semin- 
aries, step  by  step,  began  to  lose  faith, 
carried  away  by  the  insidious  attacks. 
And  today  one  of  those  exegetes  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  in  the  real  estate  busi- 


ness in  Minneapolis;  he  was  an  honor- 
able man  and  gave  up  teaching  when 
he  found  he  had  no  faith  in  it.  I  wish 
they  all  would  do  the  same.  Another 
one  of  my  dear  friends — I  am  sorry  to 
say  he  was  one  of  the  most  earnest 
Presbyterian  ministers  I  ever  met,  godly 
and  devout — came  gradually  under  the 
personal  influence  of  men  by  whom  he 
was  surrounded  and  where  we  were 
working  together,  until  finally  he  re- 
signed his  charge.  He  began  to  drift 
away,  and  today  he  is  lecturing,  when  he 
has  the  opportunity,  on  Wagnerian  Mu- 
sic and  the  beautiful  things  of  Hindoo 
Theosophy  and  kindred  subjects!  There 
he  has  found  a  subject  to  his  heart. 

Brethren,  this  is  a  serious  matter,  and 
before  I  come  to  the  point  at  issue,  I 
wish  to  pave  the  way  for  certain  things. 
We  have  had  many  practical  addresses. 
You  will  pardon  me  if  I  go  a  little  to 
the  root  of  things.  I  have  a  few  things 
that  I  jotted  down  this  morning,  as  I 
would  use  them  in  my  classroom,  be- 
cause the  subject  is  so  important,  and 
we  have  to  go  so  into  detail.  I  want  to 
make  the  matter  clear  and,  therefore, 
will  sometimes  read  a  few  things  and 
then  expound  them,  as  I  do  in  the  class- 
room. When  I  quote  men  I  want  to 
quote  them  in  their  exact  words,  so  that 
we  will  know  just  what  these  men  teach. 
Otherwise  we  are  playing  at  hazard.    •" 


SI 


It  is  a  serious  matter,  and  it  depends 
so  much  on  how  you  look  at  things.  1 
look  at  that  window;  I  see  some  beauti- 
ful colors-my  glass  happens  to  be  a 
white  glass  and  I  can  see  them.  If  1 
put  on  blue  glass,  green  or  yellow,  things 
will  look  different.  It  depends  on  what 
we  look  at  things  through,  what  presup- 
position we  start  with.  The  way  you 
start  decides  the  way  you  will  go. 

There  are  lots  of  trains  that  run  out 
of  New  York.  If  I  get  on  a  tram  that 
has  its  destination  Philadelphia,  even  if 
I  want  to  go  to  Boston,  I  will  get  to 
Philadelphia.  And  if  I  want  to  go  to 
Philadelphia,  and  there  is  a  train  stand- 
ing that,  with  all  its  pre-suppositions,  en- 
gine and  everything  else,  is  going  to 
Boston,  if  I  go  along  with  it  I  will  go 
there,  no  matter  what  my  opinion  may 
be  about  the  way  we  are  gomg.  The 
way  you  start  decides  the  way  you  will 

go. 

A.    Definition  of  Higher  Criticism. 

Now,  what  is  Higher  Criticism?  We 
have  heard  so  much  about  it-but  I  must 
lay  down  a  few  fundamental  principles 

to  start  with. 

Higher  Criticism  itself  is  nothmg  but 
a  method  of  study.  It  aims  by  means  of 
internal  evidence,  obtained  by  the  study 
of  any  one  Biblical  book  or  narrative,  to 
determine  the  origin  of  that  book,  its 
authorship,  the  literary  character  and 
trustworthiness  of  the  book.  The  de- 
sign, the  contents,  the  character  of  the 
book  under  consideration  and  their  rela- 
tions to  other  writings— we  call  that, 
technically,  the  science  of  Higher  Criti- 
cism. .     . 

The  word  itself  does  not  designate  any  • 
given  set  of  opinions  regarding  the  Bi- 
ble.   That  is  only  the  result  of  it     The 
phrase  does  not  decide  by  itself  whether 
the  critics  are  radical  or  conservative;  it 
is  simply  a  name  given  to  the  method 
of   historical   and    critical   study   of  the 
Bible.    Now,  whether  it  be  called  Nega- 
tive Higher  Criticism  or  Positive  Higher 
Criticism  depends  altogether  on  the  in- 
tellectual temperament,  the  mental  dis- 
position of  the  investigator,  and  on  the 
presuppositions  and  the  principles  which 
guide   him   in   his   work.     That   is   the 


whole  thing  at  issue.  Negative  Higher 
Criticism  can  only  be  met  on  its  own 
ground,  and  that  only  in  a  strictly  scien- 
tific way.  There  assuredly  exists,  how- 
ever, a  Higher  Criticism  that  springs 
from  full  confidence  of  faith  as  well 
as  one  that  starts  up  from  doubt.  I 
simply  wish  to  draw  the  sharp  Ime  there. 
There  is  a  Negative  Higher  Criticism, 
and  there  is  a  Positive  Higher  Criti- 
cism;  the   two   things    are    utterly    dis- 

Before  I  discuss  this  topic  which  has 
been  assigned  to  me,  it  will  be  helpful 
to  state  what  causes  led  these  two 
schools  of  Higher  Criticism,  Negative 
and  Positive,  to  reach  such  opposmg  and 
contradictory  conclusions,— for  they  are 
contradictory.  _ 

The  Negative  Higher   Critics  profess 
to  be  seeking  the  truth.    They  maintain 
that  they  have  found  a  better  way  for 
finding  out  the  meaning  of  a  book  of  the 
Bible,  or  the  significance  of  its  message 
to  us,  than  we  have.    It  may  sound  par- 
adoxical,   but    it    is    nevertheless    true, 
that  with  these   disciples   of  destructive 
Criticism,  the  true  believer   in   Revela- 
tion, the  true  believer  in  the  inspiration 
of  the  Bible,  can  have  no  manner  of  con- 
troversy.    You  can  not  discuss  the  mat- 
ter with   them  on  that  ground.     I   am 
speaking  seriously.     I  know  whereof   1 
am  speaking. 

B.    The  Presuppositions  and  Principles 
of  the  Negative  Criticism. 
The  presuppositions  of  these  Negative 
Higher  Critics,  their  specific  views,  their 
peculiar  logical  processes  as  affectmg  the 
study  and  the  interpretation  of  the  New 
Testament,  are  so  totally  different  from 
our  own  that  it  is  as  impossible  to  argue 
with  them   as   with  beings   of  different 
species.     They  only  laugh  at  us.     It  is 
as   impossible    to    explain    to    them    the 
true  meaning  of  passages  of  Scripture  as 
to  explain  the  beautiful  shadings  of  blue 
and  green  to  a  man  who  is  color  blind; 
you    might   talk   till   doomsday   and   he 
would  not  detect  the  difference.    These 
live  in  another  world  of  thought,  and  1 
am   not   finding  fault  with   them;   they 
may    be    honest    in    their    aims;    I    am 
simply  saying  they  live  in  another  world 


52 


of  thought.  The  majority  of  these  Nega- 
tive Higher  Critics  have  such  peculiar 
conceptions  of  God,  of  Revelation,  of 
Inspiration,  of  the  natural  ability  of  hu- 
man nature,  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  of 
the  consequence  of  His  death,  of  the  ob- 
jective reality  of  truth,  that  all  discussion 
of  the  difficulties  pertaining  to  Higher 
Criticism  have  to  be  postponed  until  we 
have  come  to  some  general  agreement  on 
these  fundamental  questions.  We  have, 
therefore,  at  present  no  controversy  at 
all  with  these  Negative  Higher  Critics, 
we  are  only  presenting  the  stand  taken 
by  those  that  are  known  as  Negative 
Higher  Critics.  My  object  is  mainly  to 
show  you  the  great  difference  between 
the  way  they  look  at  things  and  the  way 
we  look  at  things,  and  to  make  this  as 
comprehensive  and  clear  to  you  as  I 
possibly  can.  We  are  now  neither  argu- 
ing for  or  against  these  critics,  nor  are 
we  pleading  with  them.  I  simply  wish  to 
present  to  you  the  question  at  issue. 

We  intend  simply  to  map  out  as  fairly 
and  sharply  as  possible  the  presupposi- 
tions and  principles  on  which  these 
Negative  Higher  Critics  are  working, 
and  then  contrast  with  them  the  pre- 
suppositions and  the  principles  with 
which  those  of  us  who  believe  in  the 
Bible  are  working,  to  show  the  contrast. 

But,  first,  you  must  meet  the  charge, 
so  persistently  brought  against  the  con- 
servatives, that  they  approach  the  study 
of  the  Bible  with  certain  preconceived 
ideas.  The  moment  you  meet  a  Higher 
Critic  and  want  to  talk  with  him,  the 
first  thing  he  will  say  to  you  is  this: 
"You  are  dogmatic;  you  have  a  bias;  you 
can't  get  that  out  of  your  head;  there  is 
no  use  of  discussing  the  matter  with 
you."  They  hold  that  we  come  with  a 
dogmatic  bias,  and  therefore  we  can  not 
pursue  our  studies  in  a  critical  manner. 

These  critical  students  claim,  however, 
that  they  approach  the  Bible  simply  with 
the  earnest  desire  to  know  the  truth, 
and  that  they  do  not  come  with  any 
dogmatic  bias.  Well,  these  men  have 
a  bias.  We  all  come  with  a  dogmatic 
bias;  I  do  for  myself;  I  can't  get  rid  of 
it.  The  Bible  is  the  Bible;  I  can't  get  rid 
of  it.  But  it  is  equally  true  that  no  man 


on  earth  can  approach  the  study  of  the 
Bible  without  some  bias.  Every  human 
being  in  this  matter  has  a  mental  bias; 
it  may  be  of  indifference,  of  skepticism 
or  of  faith;  it  may  be  a  dogmatic  bias, 
a  historical  bias,  or  an  ethical  bias.  He 
ma}'  be  a  Pantheist,  denying  there  is  a 
personal  God.  He  may  be  a  Deist,  de- 
nying there  is  any  Revelation  at  all.  He 
may  be  a  Theist — and  there  are  a  dozen 
kinds  of  theists  now — no  matter  what 
he  is,  everything  will  affect  the  position 
here.  He  may  be  by  conviction  a  Nega- 
tive Higher  Critic,  or  he  may  be  a  Posi- 
tive Higher  Critic;  but  no  one  is  without 
some  opinions,  without  some  views,  and 
a  certain  mental  bias.  The  Negative 
Higher  Critics  in  their  way  have  just 
as  much  bias,  just  as  many  preconceived 
ideas,  as  their  companions.  Nothing  is 
here  gained  by  calling  names  or  claiming 
special  prerogatives.  This  is  the  first 
great  weakness  in  their  whole  general 
position. 

In  the  second  place,  as  has  been  re- 
ferred to  again  and  again  in  these  meet- 
ings, they  claim  that  all  the  scholarship 
represented  in  New  Testament  work  is 
arrayed  on  their  side.  However  this  may 
be,  it  may,  as  a  rule,  be  said  to  their 
credit,  that  the  real  scholars  among 
them  have  more  sense  and  are  juster  to 
themselves,  and  this  cry  comes  from 
"the  drawers  of  water  and  hewers  of 
wood,"  who  serve  at  the  tables  of  their 
masters.    The  real  scholars  know  better. 

There  are,  therefore,  two  kinds  of 
Higher  Criticism;  the  one  we  call  Nega- 
tive, the  other  we  call  Positive,  and  they 
can  be  as  sharply  defined  as  day  and 
night. 

First  presupposition — The  majority  of 
Negative  Higher  Critics  altogether  deny 
a  special  Revelation  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. They  maintain  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament writings  are  to  be  read  as  human 
books  and  regarded  in  the  human  way^ 
alone.  Revelation,  according  to  them, 
must  be  regarded  as  a  genuine  human 
progress,  the  creation  and  product  of 
Christian  consciousness.  They  say  there 
is  nothing  revealed  in  the  Bible;  it  is 
the  product  of  the  human  mind  like  the 
literature  of  all  ages.    This  is  the  first 


53 


presupposition,  their  first  general  opin- 
ion. 

One  of  the  ablest  theologians  of  the 
New  England  school — a  great  author  who 
for  almost  fifty  years  moulded  the  theo- 
logical and  philosophical  minds  of  nearly 
a  thousand  Congregational  ministers, — a 
great  author  who  has  written  many  books, 
and  among  them  books  on  Apologetics, 
says — and  I  want  to  bring  this  out  clear- 
ly, because  this  brings  out  the  very  point 
at  issue  that  I  want  to  illustrate: — 

"It  is  an  error  and  a  misconception  to 
maintain  that  God's  revelation  ceased 
with  the  death  of  the  last  of  Christ's  Apos- 
tles."   This  is  the  first  mistake  we  make. 

Secondly,  he  says:  "It  is  incorrect  to 
hold  [I  quote  him]  that  Revelation  was 
then  complete  and  recorded  in  a  book, 
and  that  God  leaves  that  book  among 
men  as  His  finished  Revelation  by  which 
the  world  is  to  be  converted."  He  says 
that  is  a  mistake. 

He  says,  thirdly,  "The  common  dis- 
tinction between  Revealed  Religion  and 
Natural  Religion  is  misleading."  These 
are  his  words. 

Then  he  says,  "God  reveals  Himself  pri- 
marily by  what  He  does  in  the  constitu- 
tion and  evolution  of  the  physical  uni- 
verse, in  the  constitution  of  man  and  in 
his  progressive  education  and  develop- 
ment, and  He  reveals  truth  only  in  a 
secondary  sense,  for  the  truth  revealed 
is  simply  man's  intellectual  apprehension 
of  what  God  really  is  and  does  as  He 
has  revealed  and  is  revealing  Himself  in 
His  actions."  Now,  that  is  his  definition 
of  Revelation. 

The  question  at  issue  here  really  is. 
Has  Christianity  a  supernatural  origin? 
The  tendency  of  the  Higher  Critics  i^ 
to  deny  the  reality  of  such  a  supernat- 
ural origin  of  Christianity.  In  this  they 
are  neither  scientific  nor  logical.  Nor 
are  they  consistent  with  the  very  first 
principles  of  interpretation,  for  it  is  a 
familiar  law  of  hermeneutics  that  to  un- 
derstand a  writing  we  must  put  our- 
selves in  a  sympathetic  relation  with  the 
writer.  No  one  who  denies  Revelation 
can  recognize  the  immense  significance  of 
Paul's  statement  when,  in  Galatians,  he 
makes  this  assertion:  "For  I  make  known 


to  you,  brethren,  as  touching  the  Gospel, 
which  was  preached  by  me,  that  it  is  not 
after  man;  for  neither  did  I  receive  it 
from  man  nor  was  I  taught  it,  but  it 
came  to  me  through  the  Revelation  of 
Jesus  Christ."  Now,  a  man  who  has  such 
views  of  revelation  as  these  men  have 
can  not  understand  what  Paul  means 
when  he  says  that. 

Now,  in  contradistinction  to  such  an 
equivocal,  hypercritical  and  unscientific 
way,  believers  approach  the  study  of  the 
Bible  in  a  sympathetic  way;  because 
Christianity  declares  itself  to  be  the 
fruit  of  special  Revelation,  of  which  the 
historic  Christ  is  the  centre.  Where 
this  disposition  is  wanting,  where  men 
refuse  to  accept  the  superhuman  origin 
of  the  New  Testament,  there  men  reason 
about  it,  write  about  it,  talk  about  it.  and 
criticize  it,  just  like  blind  men  reasoning 
about  colors. 

Now,  that  is  one  presupposition,  as  I 
said,  of  almost  all  Higher  Critics;  in 
other  words,  they  say  we  draw  too  sharp 
a  distinction  between  Supernatural  Rev- 
elation and  Natural  Revelation;  they  say 
it  is  all  Natural  Revelation. 

Second  Presupposition. — In  the  second 
place  these  Negative  Higher  Critics  also 
show  their  unscientific  character  by  their 
peculiar  views  and  theories  of  inspira- 
tion. 

A  professed  historian  of  the  High- 
er Criticism  says  (and  I  quote  his 
exact  words) :  "Criticism  has  its  In- 
spiration. The  credal  period  was 
inspired."  He  means  the  time  when 
creeds  were  made  and  when  the  Bible 
was  collected  together — that  was  in- 
spired. "Without  it  we  could  not  have 
our  own  Bible.  Without  it  we  should 
not  have  that  common  Christian  con- 
sciousness, whicli  is  the  foundation  of 
the  idealizing  forces  of  our  time.  Our 
own  critical  age  is  no  less  inspired.  The 
Word  of  God  has  now  been  unbound, 
set  free  from  the  shackles  that  human 
opinion  had  put  on  it."  That  is  the  way 
he  puts  it. 

Now,  it  is  not  our  aim  to  discuss  the 
various  theories  of  Inspiration  current 
among  these  Negative  Critics — you  have 
heard  of  some  of  them.     Some  of  them 


54 


maintain  it  is  simply  Natural  Inspiration 
just  like  Shakespeare,  Homer,  or  any  of 
these  grand  old  authors;  that  it  is  illu- 
mination of  the  mind  and  nothing  more. 
Then,  others,  again,  hold  the  popular 
view  that  some  things  are  inspired, 
others  are  not.  I  am  not  going  to  dis- 
cuss this. 

The  point  I  make  is  simply  this:  If 
we  approach  the  study  of  the  Bible  with 
a  view  not  in  sympathy  with  it,  or  in 
conflict  with  what  it  professes  to  be;  if 
we  do  not  take  into  consideration  the 
moral  and  intellectual  character  of  the 
Bible, — we  do  not  approach  it  in  the 
true  way.  It  is  not  in  accordance  with 
the  true  principles  of  interpretation,  nor 
can  such  a  man  ever  arrive  at  the 
thought  of  the  men  whose  words  are 
written  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  question  also  arises,  Can  any  one 
obtain  a  true  knowledge  of  the  Word  of 
God,  its  meaning  and  its  bearing  upon 
our  lives,  unless  he  is  taught  by  the 
Spirit? 

Now,  that  is  an  important  question. 
Do  you  know,  the  Bible  makes  that  a 
prominent  point, — that  no  man  can  be- 
lieve in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  or  call 
Him  Lord,  except  by  the  power  of  the 
Spirit?  They  utterly  cast  that  aside. 
They  demand  that  we  interpret  the 
Bible  in  the  same  way  as  all  other 
known    writings. 

Now,  if  this  be  the  true  way  (and  we 
will  grant  it  for  the  time  being),  then 
these  writings  must  be  taken  on  their 
own  claims  and  judged  by  the  light  they 
bring.  If  they  want  to  do  that,  let  them 
take  them  just  as  they  are,  in  the  light 
of  what  they  profess  to  be.  These  books 
claim  to  be  divine.  They  prove  their 
claim,  as  every  man  who  has  been  re- 
generated by  the  Holy  Spirit  can  tes- 
tify. Then,  why  should  we  reduce  them 
back  to  purely  human  writing?  This 
whole  position  on  their  part  is  preju- 
diced, it  is  one-sided,  it  is  altogether  un- 
scientific. Speaking  about  their  critical 
principles,  there  is  nothing  critical  about 
this,  nothing  scientific  about  it.  There 
must  be  a  better  critical  method  on  their 
part.  Let  them  apply  the  canon  of  criti- 
cism they  love  to  speak  about. 


Why,  such  men  can  never  understand 
the  true  significance  of  Jesus  Christ's 
promises.  Well,  if  you  were  critics,  my 
friends,  I  would  not  dare  to  urge  this 
position.  If  you  were  Negative  Critics, 
you  would  raise  the  question:  "You 
know  very  well  our  Savior  never  said 
that;  it  is  from  St.  John;  'But  the  Com- 
forter, even  the  Holy  Spirit  whom  the 
Father  will  send  in  My  name,  He  shall 
teach  you  all  things  and  bring  to  your 
remembrance  the  things  that  I  have  said 
unto  you.' " 

Others  will  say,  "You  know  as  well 
as  I  do  that  St.  John  did  not  write  that, 
nor  did  our  Savior  ever  say  it." 

If  we  then  quote  John  xvi.  13,  which 
we  love  to  dwell  upon:  "H'owbeit  when 
he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  will 
guide  you  into  all  truth;  for  he  shall  not 
speak  of  himself;  but  whatsoever  he 
shall  hear,  that  shall  he  speak;  and  he 
shall  declare  unto  you  the  things  that 
are  to  come,"  they  will  say:  "You 
know  very  well,  Professor,  that  John 
did  not  write  that,  nor  did  our  Savior 
say  it.  We  critics  have  gone  beyond 
that."  There  is  no  use  proving  this 
from  the  Bible;  you  might  as  well  talk 
to  the  moon.  They  could  not  under- 
stand such  testimony  as  that  of  St.  Paul, 
when  in  First  Thessalonians  he  writes, 
"For  this  cause  also  thank  we  God  with- 
out ceasing,  because  when  ye  received 
the  Word  of  God  which  ye  heard  of  us, 
ye  accepted  it  not  as  the  word  of  men, 
but  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  Word  of  God 
which  effectually  worketh  also  in  you 
that  believe."  They  could  not  under- 
stand that  in  that  way. 

Brethren,  there  is  a  right  way  and  a 
wrong  way  to  carry  on  your  critical 
study.  We  can  readily  understand  what 
results  a  man  will  attain  who  preaches 
the  Bible  with  such  views  as  we  have 
discussed,  denying  its  supernatural  ori- 
gin and  denying  its  inspiration. 

Brethren,  there  are  two  great  miracles 
which  are  the  centre  and  the  foundation 
of  all  Bible  truth:  the  first  is  the  Incar- 
nation of  the  Son  of  God,  that  the  Son 
of  God  took  upon  Himself  our  human 
nature;  the  second,  which  is  a  comple- 
ment to  it  and  which  you  can  not  sepa- 


55 


rate,  is  the  Inspiration  of  the  Bible.  How 
can  I  know  the  fact  of  the  Incarnation  of 
the  Son  of  God,  unless  I  have  an  abso- 
lutely true  statement  concerning  it?  I  can 
not  otherwise  believe  it;  I  can  not  sepa- 
rate the  two;  they  stand  or  fafl  together. 

Let  me  tell  you  another  thing,  Breth- 
ren. The  men  who  do  not  believe  in  the 
Inspiration  of  the  Bible  are  the  very 
men  who  do  not  believe  in  the  Incarna- 
tion of  the  Son  of  God. 

Now,  you  can  rest  assured  I  am  telling 
you  the  truth  here — I  know  whereof  I 
speak — and  those  of  you  who  have  ever 
investigated  the  matter,  know  these 
things  are  absolutely  so;  the  doctrine  of 
the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  and 
of  the  Inspiration  of  Scripture,  com- 
plement each  other.  Excuse  me  for 
using  the  expression  in  the  Word 
of  God  —  written  in  the  language  of 
men,  using  the  powers  and  gifts  of 
men  and  their  peculiar  character,  and 
everything  that  pertains  to  them — the 
Holy  Ghost  has  become  Incarnate,  and 
the  doctrines  of  Incarnation  and  of  In- 
spiration can  not  be  separated;  they  stand 
and  they  fall  together.  You  can  medi- 
tate on  that,  brethren,  as  long  as  you 
live  and  investigate  Scripture.  It  is  the 
Bible  that  claims  that  the  Son  of  God 
became  Incarnate,  and  it  is  the  Bible 
that  claims  that  the  H'oly  Record  is  in- 
spired, and  that  men  wrote  the  books 
guided  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  have  not 
time  to  discuss  that  subject;  that  is  an- 
other topic. 

The  way  of  the  believer  is  the  truly 
scientific  way;  he  approaches  the  Bible, 
not  in  a  sceptical,  but  in  a  reverential 
and  devout,  spirit,  acknowledging  the 
supernatural  origin  of  the  Bible  and  its 
inspiration;  for,  brethren,  the  conserva- 
tive may  be  more  truly  critical  than  the 
most  radical  critic,  for  he  has  a  desire 
to  get  all  the  facts  recorded  in  Scripture 
in  all  their  bearings.  A  book  must  be 
studied  from  the  standpoint  of  its  inner 
claims.  If  it  professes  to  be  written  by 
Paul,  if  it  claims  to  have  received  a  reve- 
lation from  God,  the  true  critical  spirit 
is  to  enter  upon  the  more  detailed  ex- 
amination of  that  book  on  the  basis  of 
these  facts. 


The  question  narrows  itself  down  to 
this,  my  friends:  Shall  we  start  our 
study  of  a  particular  book  of  the  New 
Testament  from  the  standpoint  of  what 
the  book  itself  says  of  itself,  or  from  the 
view  of  some  critic  who  may  deny  the 
fact  of  a  supernatural  revelation  at  all, 
or  of  inspiration?  There  can  be  but  one 
answer.  The  position  of  the  Negative 
Higher  Critic  is  neither  critical  nor  sci- 
entific. 

Third  Presupposition.  —  These  Nega- 
tive Higher  Crftics  take  it  for  granted 
that  our  traditional  views  of  the  New 
Testament  are  utterly  false  from  every 
standpoint.  They  put  outside  the  critical 
pale  those  who  retain  the  supernatural 
interpretation  of  the  origin  of  Christi- 
anity. This  position  on  their  part  is 
neither  critical  nor  scholarly.  We  hold 
that  the  traditional  view  is  the  most 
reasonable  working  hypothesis  for  the 
proper  study  of  the  Bible.  It  is  just  as 
legitimate,  and  certainly  it  constitutes 
just  as  good  a  working  hypothesis. 

Fourth  Presupposition. — Strange  as  it 
may  seem,  brethren,  certain  presupposi- 
tions in  philosophy  underlie  every  form 
of  Negative  Higher  Criticism,  and  these 
are  the  most  important  of  all.  The  dis- 
cussion of  this  point  may  be  a  little  dry, 
but  I  know  that  in  view  of  its  import- 
ance you  will  bear  with  me,  and  I  will 
try  to  make  it  as  interesting  and  brief 
as  possible. 

Certain  presuppositions  in  philosophy 
underlie  every  form  of  Higher  Criticism. 
We  can  not  rid  ourselves  of  any  and  all 
philosophic  views.  The  more  positive 
and  realistic  our  philosophy,  the  more 
conservative  will  be  our  position.  The 
more  idealistic  our  philosophy,  the  more 
radical  will  be  our  position. 

Three  Fundamental  Questions  in  Phi- 
losophy.— In  these  days  of  advanced  cul- 
ture and  thought,  when  everybody  wants 
to  know  something  about  philosophy, 
we  have  a  right  to  ask  three  great  fun- 
damental questions  of  every  man  who 
poses  as  a  theologian,  or  wishes  to  come 
forth  as  an  interpreter  of  the  Bible. 

The  first  question  is,  What  is  j'our 
theory  of  the  Universe,  or  don't  you  be- 
lieve in  the  Universe  at  all? 


56 


i 


The  second  is,  What  is  your  theory  of 
Knowledge,  or  don't  you  know  anything? 

The  third  is,  What  is  your  opinion  of 
the  ultimate  rule  of  Right,  or  is  Right 
right  because  you  say  so? 

Remember  those  are  three  great  ques- 
tions; and  of  every  man  who  poses  as 
an  interpreter  of  the  Bible  we  have  a 
right   to    ask    those    questions. 

Well,  now,  I  have  got  to  subdivide 
the  discussion. 

I.  Theory  of  the  Universe. — With  ref- 
erence to  a  man's  theory  of  the  Uni- 
verse, he  must  be  able  to  give  answer  to 
five  important  questions.  He  is  talking 
now  so  learnedly;  he  is  going  to  ex- 
pound the  Bible.  You  want  to  know 
with  reference  to  his  opinion  of  the  Uni- 
verse his  answers  to  five  questions. 

First,  Do  you  believe  that  there  is  a 
Supreme  Spirit  who  created  the  Uni- 
verse?   He  must  either  say  yes  or  no. 

We  ask  him  again.  Do  you  believe 
that  only  matter  exists  or  only  mind  ex- 
ists; or  do  both  exist;  or  is  there  a  fu- 
sion of  the  two?  That  is,  he  must  con- 
fess and  tell  us  whether  he  is  a  mate- 
rialist or  whether  he  is  a  spiritualist,  or 
whether  he  is  a  dualist,  or  a  monist. 

We  will  go  a  step  further,  and  ask 
him:  Do  you  think  that  events  occur 
mechanically  or  from  the  point  of  view 
of  purpose?  He  will  have  to  come  to 
some  conclusion. 

We  have  a  right  to  ask  him:  "What 
is  your  idea  of  God?  Are  you  a  Panthe- 
ist, or  are  you  a  Deist,  or  are  you  an 
Atheist,  or  are  you  a  Theist?  You  must 
be  one  or  the  other,  and  we  have  a  right 
to  ask." 

And,  finally,  we  ask  him:  "Do  you  be- 
lieve in  the  Freedom  of  the  Will,  or  do 
you  not?    What  do  you  say  about  that?" 

Well,  you  may  say,  "What  has  this  to 
do  with  the  matter  of  Criticism?"  It 
has  a  great  deal  to  do  with  it,  brethren. 
All  this  we  must  know  with  reference 
to  a  man's  metaphysical  ideas  in  rela- 
tion to  the  question:  "What  is  your 
theory  of  the  Universe?"  Strange  as  it 
may  seem,  his  views  on  the  Bible  are 
largely  dependent  upon  his  attitude 
upon  these  important  questions  on  the 
theory  of  the   universe. 


2.  Theory  of  Knowledge. — But  this  is 
not  the  most  important,  yet  it  is  im- 
portant. We  come  to  the  second  ques- 
tion: "What  is  your  theory  of  Knowl- 
edge?" Here,  we  have  to  ask  three 
questions  of  this  man.  We  put  him  be- 
fore us  and  we  say: 

"Now,  let  me  ask  you,  what  is  your 
idea  of  the  origin  of  Knowledge?  Where 
did  you  get  it?  Is  Reason  the  only 
source,  or  is  it  from  Experience?" 
Nearly  all  these  men  are  empiricists, 
holding  that  we  gain  our  knowledge 
mainly,  if  not  wholly,  from  experience, 
"Or  does  knowledge  arise  from  both  Rea- 
son and  Experience, or  is  there  some  other 
explanation  of  this?"  All  men,  that  is, 
true  theologians,  have  positive  convic- 
tions about  these  things,  and  we  can 
mark  them  just  as  you  can  the  difference 
between  yellow  and  white.  When  we 
learn  a  man's  philosophical  opinions,  we 
know  exactly  where  he  is  going  to  come 
out.  We  know  by  what  train  he  is  go- 
ing and  we  know  where  he  will  get  oflf. 
Now,  that  is  the  second  question.  We 
are  not  through  yet  with  him. 

We  ask  the  next  question:  "What  is 
your  conception  of  the  validity  of 
Knowledge?  When  is  a  thing  really 
true?  Is  all  knowledge  valid,  and  can  we 
know  everything?  Or  is  all  knowledge 
only  relatively  and  subjectively  valid, 
and  true  only  for  a  particular  time  and 
particular  place,  or  under  particular  con- 
ditions? Here  all  these  fellows  sit  in  a 
row;  they  all  say,  "It  is  only  true  at  a 
certain  time,  but  it  is  not  always  true." 
Brethren,  that  is  very  important. 

Again,  we  have  a  right  to  ask:  "Is  it 
only  valid  and  true  for  the  individual 
who  comes  to  the  knowledge  of  it?" 
And  they  say,  "Yes,  a  thing  is  not  true 
unless  you  know  it." 

What  nonsense!  A  thing  is  true, 
whether  you  believe  it  or  don't  believe 
it;  whether  you  ever  heard  of  it  or  not. 
There  is  a  God  that  exists,  whether  you 
believe  it  or  disbelieve  it,  or  have  no 
views  about  it.  That  has  nothing  to  do 
with  it.  But  these  men  all  take  that 
position.  Or  is  the  true  answer,  that 
human  knowledge  has  limits  or  degrees 
of    certainty,    and    that    necessarily    we 


57 


must   determine   these   limits   of   human 
knowledge? 

I  simply  wish  to  say  that  we  must  ask 
every  one  of  these  critics,  "What  are 
your  theories  of  Knowledge?  What  are 
your  views  about  those  things?  What 
is  your  conception  of  the  contents  of 
Knowledge?  What  is  it  that  you  ac- 
tually can  get  when  you  have  it  in  your 
little  book  here?  Does  it  consist  merely 
of  ideas  and  simply  a  content  of  con- 
sciousness, something  subjective;  or  is 
there  an  objective  something  existing 
outside  of  consciousness  not  dependent 
upon  our  ideas;  or  are  the  two,  the  sub- 
jective and  the  objective,  simply  phenom- 
enal things  as  they  appear  in  their  re- 
lation to  us,  and  not  things  as  they 
are?"  And  here,  brethren,  all  these  men 
take  the  wrong  conception.  There  is  no 
such  thing  to  them  as  objective  truth; 
no  such  thing.  It  is  only  true  when  you 
believe  it.  If  I  had  time,  I  would  like 
to  develop  this,  although  it  has  been  dis- 
cussed under  a  different  topic.  Breth- 
ren, these  men  are  all  full  of  points 
everywhere,  horns  sticking  out  every- 
where; and  you  have  got  to  commence 
pulling  at  one  end  and  pull  out  every 
one,  and  after  you  pluck  them,  they 
don't  see  it. 

3.  The  Ethical  Question.— The  third 
great  question  is  the  most  important  of 
all  we  have  touched  upon  yet,  that  is,  the 
ethical  question.  You  have  a  right  to 
ask  this:  "What  is  the  origin  of  Moral- 
ity? Why  is  a  thing  right?  Why  is  it 
obligatory?  Does  moral  obligation  have 
its  origin  in  the  mind  of  man?"  And, 
poor  fellows,  lots  of  them  think  that 
reason  decides  everything. 

Or,  is  it  in  his  conscience?  They  think 
their  conscience — even  if  it  is  depraved 
or  stunted — settles  everything.  That 
is  the  rule  of  right. 

Or,  is  there  an  authoritative  law  that  is 
positive,  based  upon  the  Will  of  God  as 
H'e  has  revealed  Himself?  That  is  the 
point  at  issue.  Is  a  thing  right,  even  if 
I  do  not  know  it  and  do  not  value  it, 
and  reject  it  and  refuse  it?  Is  it  right 
after  all,  depending  not  at  all  upon  my 
conscience  nor  upon  my  will? 

Is    this    moral    idea  in   us  implanted. 


born  with  us,  born  in  us,  or  is  it  simply 
the  product  of  opinion,  and  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  individual  and  the  race? 
These  men  are  all  permeated  with 
this  evolution  theory.  Why,  even 
Spencer  goes  so  far  that  he  maintains 
that  conscience  is  an  evolution,  and  the 
time  will  come  when  there  will  be  no 
distinction  between  right  and  wrong,  be- 
cause every  one's  conscience  is  abso- 
lutely right — that  is  Herbert  Spencer's 
conclusion. 

These  Questions  Fundamental  to  Crit- 
icism.—Now,  why  speak  of  these  things? 
Because  we  can  not  properly  and 
intelligently  speak  of  the  problems  of 
New  Testament  Criticism,  or  under- 
stand the  reason  of  the  uncritical  and 
destructive  conclusions  arrived  at  by 
these  Negative  Critics,  unless  we  know 
the  positions  that  these  men  take  on 
these  philosophic  problems;  and  unless 
a  man  knows  this  and  knows  whereof 
he  speaks,  there  is  no  use  of  arguing 
with  him. 

That  they  come  to  such  views  does 
not  depend  so  much  on  the  facts  they 
have  had  before  them;  it  does  not  de- 
pend upon  those  facts  that  they  pro- 
duce in  that  analysis  and  investigation; 
everything  depends  on  the  views  and 
presuppositions  which  they  bring  with 
them,  and  the  mental  bias  that  guides 
them,  and  that  so  colors  their  mental 
and  spiritual  vision  that  they  see  men 
like  trees  walking, — and  they  are  always 
trees. 

Now,  these  Negative  Critics  have  a 
peculiar  view  of  Knowledge.  The  Ideal- 
ists have  drawn  a  sharp  distinction  be- 
tween religious  knowledge  and  theoret- 
ical knowledge.  Religious  knowledge, 
they  say,  has  only  to  do  with  value  judg- 
ments; there  is  no  objective  truth  that 
is  universally  true.  A  doctrine  is  only 
so  far  true  as  it  has  a  value  for  me,  i.  e., 
according  to  its  fitness  to  me  or  as  it 
satisfies  my  own   religious  needs. 

A  historian  of  this  movement  thinks 
(and  let  us  listen  to  his  grandiloquent 
language) — he  thinks  that  "the  great 
aim  of  all  true  Biblical  men  in  their 
study  is  to  do  their  work  in  such  a  way 
that   the   Bible  may   commend  itself  to 


S8 


reasoning  and  reverent  men  as  God's 
Book  of  final  values  for  all  who  would 
live  nobly."  That  is  it.  Just  think, 
brethren,  it  is  to  commend  itself  to  you 
for  its  final  values;  if  you  know  what 
that  means — I  do  not. 

Equally  peculiar  is  their  conception  of 
moral  judgment.  The  natural  reason  is 
regarded  as  the  norm,  the  rule,  the  stand- 
ard of  all  that  is  right.  Whatever  I  think 
is  right;  that  must  be  right.  This  in 
Ethics  is  known  as  the  Autonomist  view; 
the  man  is  a  law  to  himself. 

C.    The  Three  Methods  of  the  Higher 

Criticism. 

Now,  brethren,  those  are  the  princi- 
ples— you  understand  that — and  when  a 
man  looks  at  things  that  way  and  comes 
to  teach  the  Bible,  you  all  know  what 
the  result  will  be. 

Now,  Higher  Criticism  has  three  meth- 
ods. The  first  is  what  we  call  the  Liter- 
ary Method.  The  second  is  what  we  call 
the  Historic  Method.  The  third  is  what 
we  call  the  Theological  Method.  Oh, 
they  have  got  things  down  to  a  fine 
point! 

I.  Now  we  come  to  the  Literary 
Method. 

That  is  a  fine  thing — I  wish  I  could 
tell  you  about  it — how  they  get  up  all 
these  objective  propositions  and  study 
the  soul  of  things.  Oh,  it  is  wonderfully 
interesting!  but  the  vagaries  and  extrava- 
gancies of  the  so-called  Literary  Critics 
are  simply  amazing.  I  will  just  illus- 
trate. 

You  have  heard  of  Tiibingen.  These 
Tiibingen  fellows  are  very  wise;  they 
know  what  style  is;  they  know  all  about 
that  in  the  New  Testament;  so  they  ex- 
amine the  writings  of  St.  John,  the  Gos- 
pel and  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse. 
Well,  then,  one  set  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion at  one  time  that  the  man  who 
wrote  the  Greek  of  St.  John  and  wrote 
the  Greek  of  the  Epistles  could  not  have 
written  the  Apocalypse;  but  that  John 
wrote  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles,  and 
he  didn't  write  the  Apocalypse.  Then,  a 
few  years  later  came  another  set,  and 
they  began  to  thresh  it  over  again,  and 
they  concluded:  "Yes,  that  is  so.     One 


could  not  have  written  them  both;  but 
it  was  St.  John  that  wrote  the  Apoca- 
lypse, and  he  did  not  write  the  Gospel 
and  the  Epistles."  And  next  came  the 
third  set.  They  concluded:  "There  is 
a  mistake  here  evidently.  St.  John  wrote 
the  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse,  but  he 
did  not  write  the  Gospel."  And  so  they 
kept  on  threshing  one  another,  and  the 
latest  thing  is  that  St.  John  wrote  the 
Apocalypse  but  no  one  knows  who  wrote 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John  or  the  Epistles. 
I  only  want  to  show  you  how  conclusive 
the  argument  is;  how  they  all  agree  to 
disagree. 

Brethren,  it  takes  clear  judgment,  it 
takes  fine  skill;  it  becomes  a  Bacon- 
Shakespeare  question.  It  revives  the  old 
question,  "Who  wrote  Shakespeare?"  to 
settle  these  matters  of  style.  It  is  a  very 
difficult  problem,  and  there  is  a  wide- 
spread conviction  among  scholars  that 
those  attacks  upon  the  books  by  the 
critics  will  not  come  to  anything  posi- 
tive in  the  way  of  results. 

Let  me  tell  you  a  little  story.  I  do 
not  know  whether  many  of  you  have  ever 
read  Dr.  Mead's  "Romans  Dissected."  It 
is  a  good  book.  He  wrote  it  in  Germany, 
and  he  took  the  position  (by  the  way,  I 
must  tell  you  beforehand  that  this  was 
only  to  show  how  foolish  their  position 
is;  he  wrote  it  as  a  joke;  but  he  wrote  it); 
and  he  took  the  position  that  there  were 
four  authors  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans; that  one  man  always  said,  "Jesus 
Christ  the  Lord;"  another  said,  "The 
Lord  Jesus  Christ;"  another,  "The  Lord 
Jesus;"  and  the  other,  "Jesus  the  Lord." 
It  is  a  good  thing,  and  he  signs  himself 
"McRealsham."  The  joke  was,  the  Ger- 
mans got  hold  of  it  and  praised  it,  and 
said  it  was  a  decided  step  in  the  progress 
of  Higher  Criticism!  Then,  in  the  second 
edition,  he  had  to  translate  it  into  Eng- 
lish; and  then  he  put  in  the  preface  that 
it  was  to  be  understood  clearly  that  he 
did  not  take  that  position  himself;  he 
only  wrote  the  book  to  show  how  foolish 
their  argument  was.  I  want  you  to  ex- 
amine it  sometime. 

This  literary  method  is  very  complex 
and  misleading.  The  internal  evidence 
upon  which  they  rely,  you  can  not  find. 


59 


Each  man  has  a  certain  ground  for  his 
conclusion,  but  it  is  always  questionable. 
The  whole  process  lacks  external  evi- 
dence, and  so  we  must  say  it  is  alto- 
gether unsatisfactory.  This  is  what  we 
call  the  Literary  Method,  and  the  amaz- 
ing learning  these  men  display  is  some- 
thing wonderful;  they  are  depositaries  of 
learning,  walking  encyclopedias,  but  what 
good  does  it  do? 

2.  We  come  now  to  the  Historical 
School. 

The  Historical  School  generally  take 
the  naturalistic  position;  that  is,  they  say 
the  miraculous  is  incredible.  They  start 
with  that  and  come  to  the  Book  with 
presuppositions  so  strong  that  their  judg- 
ment is  all  distorted  and  one-sided.  They 
take  for  granted  that  there  is  a  contrast 
between  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  that 
of  St.  Paul— they  take  that  for  granted 
and  say  that  Paul  is  the  real  founder  of 
Christianity  as  we  know  it,  and  not 
Christ. 

Notice  again,  that  they  say,  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  Christ  being  the  only  guide, 
we  can  not  claim  for  Paul  the  same  level 
of  authority  as  we  can  for  what  Jesus 
said:  they  take  that  position. 

jNow,  notice  again,  they  say  Paul  was 
possessed  of  certain  presuppositions;  and 
that  the  peculiarities  of  his  wonderful 
theology  are  due  to  two  things:  first, 
the  Pharisaism  that  was  still  in  him — 
on  this  they  quote  passage  after  passage 
— and,  secondly,  his  early  training;  and 
they  say  that  is  the  reason  we  have  got 
things  so  distorted  in  St.  Paul's  writings. 

In  fact,  notice  this,  brethren — and  you 
can  not  understand  New  Testament  criti- 
cism unless  you  lay  stress  upon  this — ac- 
cording to  the  view  of  the  Higher  Critics, 
as  a  rule,  the  Apostles  were  but  inter- 
preters of  Christ's  teaching  just  as  we 
are  today  simply  interpreters.  Christ 
said  something  and  they  try  to  explain 
it;  their  teaching  was  but  an  individual 
interpretation  of  Christ's  teaching.  One 
of  them  says  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Apostles  in  the  New  Testament  has  not 
as  great  an  authority  as  ours  has  today. — 
Why?  Why?  Why?— We  have  lived  later; 
we  have  more  knowledge;  we  have  more 
experience.    They  say  we  have  the  whole 


past  behind  us,  and  so  we  have  got  the 
whole  history  and  experience  of  the 
Christian  Church  to  aid  us;  and  there- 
fore we  can  interpret  the  New  Testament 
better  than  anything  we  have  found  in 
the  New  Testament  itself. 

Now,  what  does  that  mean,  brethren, 
just  think  what  that  means!  We  must  go 
back  and  find  out  what  sayings  there  are 
of  Christ  in  the  Gospels;  and  then  we 
can  interpret  them  better  than  these  men 
could! 

They  say  that  the  Apostles  and  early 
writers  themselves  added  something, — 
their  views,  their  interpretation — to  the 
sayings  of  Jesus;  that  the  sayings  of 
Jesus  are  the  whole  thing,  the  logia.  The 
Apostles  added  their  interpretation  to 
those  logia,  and  so  there  was  a  documen- 
tary growth;  first,  a  little  was  added  to  it, 
and  then  a  little  more;  Matthew  had  col- 
lected certain  things,  Luke  had  collected 
certain  things;  after  a  while  each  added 
a  little  more,  his  own  interpretation, 
then  afterwards  enlarged  it;  then  an- 
other man  got  hold  of  it  and  enlarged  it; 
so  we  do  not  know  anything  that  Christ 
really  said,  except  a  passage  or  two,  and 
there  are  doubts  about  even  that. 

That  is  their  idea  of  documentary 
growth,  and  there  is  that  Evolutionary 
Fad,  about  which  we  will  hear  later  from 
a  scientific  point  of  view.  They  start 
with  the  idea — this  is  the  historical  posi- 
tion— that  all  records  of  the  supernatural, 
whether  in  the  Gospels  or  in  the  Epistles, 
are  evidently  unhistoric.  As  they  are 
not  historic,  we  need  not  pay  any  atten- 
tion to  them;  such  narratives  are  largely 
legendary  and  mythical. 

3.  Now  we  come  to  the  Theological 
Method.  There  the  Critics  take  up  the 
contents  of  each  book  with  reference  to 
its  theology,  and  start  in  with  their  pre- 
supposition that  we  have  only  interpre- 
tations of  Christ's  teaching  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  they  positively  attack  all 
the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity; 
there  is  not  a  single  one  that  is  left  ac- 
cording to  the  position  of  these  critics. 
The  Apostles  have  everywhere  erred  in 
their  statements  of  doctrine.  They  have 
erred  especially  in  the  doctrines  of  Esch- 
atology;  even  Jesus,  they  say,  got  mixed 


60 


up  there;  there  is  nothing  clear  about 
what  they  claim;  they  all  got  mixed 
up  about  punishment,  about  the  incarna- 
tion, about  Christ  being  born  without 
sin.  And  so  they  take  up  every  doctrine 
and  question  it;  especially  about  the 
Second  Advent,  they  do  not  want  to 
hear  anything  about  that. 

Now,  when  they  come  to  the  study  of 
all  these  things  they  pursue  very  un- 
critical methods.  They  do  nothing  but 
find  fault;  they  are  critical  in  this  par- 
ticular sense  of  the  word,  finding  fault 
all  the  time.  They  start  on  the  principle 
of  doubting  everything — and  I  am  sorry 
to  say  that  this  is  the  method  of  modern 
education;  modern  education  now  says 
a  man  can  not  learn  anything  unless  he 
doubts,  he  must  doubt;  don't  believe  in 
anything  that  has  been  told  you  from 
childhood,  but  question  everything — and 
so  they  start  in  on  all  their  critical  la- 
bors, not  to  believe  it  is  so  and  take  it 
for  granted  until  you  find  it  is  false;  but 
no,  you  must  doubt  everything.  We  say 
this  is  a  non-critical  way. 

They  first  make  fun  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  which  main- 
tains the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  Then 
they  claim  that  the  Protestant  Church 
takes  the  safe  position.  Then  they  make 
fun  of  Papal  Infallibility  and  say  that  is 
not  so.  Finally  they  settle  down  upon 
the  Infallibility  of  every  man  that  writes 
upon  it — he  knows  all  about  it  (Christ 
did  not  know  and  Paul  did  not  know) — 
the  Critics  settle  everything  and  they 
give  us  the  facts. 

I  only  want  to  tell  you,  my  friends, 
what  this  thing  amounts  to.  There  is 
something  back  of  it.  They  claim  nu- 
merous contradictions,  and  then  they  use 
these  discrepancies,  as  they  regard  them, 
as  arguments  against  the  credibility  of 
the  Book. 

They  love  to  tell  us  about  that  entry 
of  Christ  into  Jericho,  where  in  Luke 
it  tells  us  that  when  he  drew  nigh  unto 
the  city,  He  cured  a  blind  man;  but  in 
Matthew  we  are  told  that  when  our  Sav- 
ior was  leaving  Jericho  He  cured  two 
blind  men.  They  say,  "Here  is  evidently 
the  same  narrative,  but  the  writer  got 
mixed  up."    Why,  there  were  many  blind 


men  in  Jericho  at  that  time.  Those  of  you 
who  have  travelled  in  the  East,  know  that 
there  is  a  great  deal  of  blindness;  there 
is  nothing  surprising  at  all  in  that.  But 
they  emphasize  all  seeming  discrepan- 
cies every  time — that  is  their  stock  in 
trade — they  bring  that  out;  and  the  man 
who  does  not  know  anything  about  it,  he 
gets  stunned  when  these  learned  men 
come  with  these  profound  discussions. 

And  you  ought  to  study  the  question 
of  the  Harmony  of  the  Gospels.  Ac- 
cording to  their  claims,  there  is  no  har- 
mony at  all;  we  have  nothing  positive. 
Their  method  is  unscientific,  because  they 
limit  themselves  mainly  to  internal  evi- 
dence, and  leave  out  of  consideration  and 
systematically  exclude  a  large  amount  of 
the  evidence  at  hand  on  which  the  truth 
of  Christianity  rests. 

One  illustration:  If  there  is  one  thing 
clear  in  the  testimony  of  the  ancient 
Church,  it  is  that  St.  John,  in  his  old  age 
(about  the  year  96),  wrote  the  Apoca- 
lypse. This  is  the  uniform  testimony  of 
all  Christian  writers  from  St.  John's 
time  on  to  the  Third  Century,  the  uni- 
form external  evidence.  And,  yet,  these 
men  simply  sit  down  (and  I  am  sorry  to 
say  not  only  the  rationalistic  interpret- 
ers, but  many  others)  and  take  the  po- 
sition, purely  from  very  questionable  in- 
ternal evidence,  that  if  St.  John  v/rote 
this  book  it  must  have  been  composed  be- 
tween the  death  of  Nero  (68  A.D.)  and  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  (70  A.  D.) — 
and  they  settle  the  whole  thing  right 
there  and  then.  They  go  on  and  get 
the  internal  evidence  and  never  touch 
the  question  of  external  evidence.  The 
latest  critic,  however,  finds  it  to  his  pur- 
pose to  accept  St.  John  as  the  author, 
and  so  he  accepts  the  external  evidence, 
and  maintains  that  John  wrote  the  Apoc- 
alypse about  96  A.D.  He,  however, 
comes  to  the  astounding  conclusion  that 
the  Gospel  of  John  records  only  logia, 
or  sayings  of  our  Savior,  and  that  St. 
John  had  very  little  to  do  with  it;  that 
it  contains  simply  the  metaphysical  opin- 
ions of  a  writer  who  lived  long  after 
John's  time;  and  simply  because  it  falls 
in  with  his  view,  the  latest  critic  reaches 
the    conclusion    that    the    external    evi- 


61 


dence  must  be  considered  in  deciding 
the   time   and  authorship   of   Revelation. 

Nov,  one  of  them  maintains  that  the 
most  trustworthy  information  that  we 
have  regarding  the  origin  of  the  greater 
part  of  the  New  Testament  books,  is 
not  to  be  credited  to  the  Christian  wri- 
ters who  lived  within  sixty  or  one  hun- 
dred years  after  they  were  written,  but 
we  owe  all  of  this  knowledge  to  the 
historic  criticism  which  took  its  rise  sev- 
enteen hundred  years  later. 

Another  writer,  who  lives  in  this  city, 
writes:  "If  the  question  which  the  higher 
criticism  seeks  to  answer  can  not  be  an- 
swered by  this  method,  then  there  is  no 
answer  at  all."  That  is,  we  are  to  ex- 
clude external  evidence  altogether,  and 
rely  only  on  internal  evidence. 

I  had  intended  to  go  into  the  Synoptical 
Problem,  but  I  must  pass  over  that.  I 
would  like  to  tell  you  the  opinions  they 
have  about  Matthew,  about  Mark,  and 
about  the  other  books,  but  it  is  not  pos- 


sible now.  They  simply  make  the  decla- 
ration that  we  have  really  nothing  that 
our  Savior  said,  not  even  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount.  It  is  simply  an  unhis- 
torical   reproduction. 

In  closing  I  thank  you  for  your  pa- 
tience, brethren.  I  simply  wished  to 
present  to  you  the  view  that  these  men 
have.  In  the  light  of  that  view  we  can 
understand  very  well  why  they  come  to 
such  conclusions — it  is  not  at  all  surpris- 
ing; and  until  we  settle  those  fundamen- 
tal questions,  they  will  keep  on  grinding 
away,  and  finally  nothing  will  be  left. 

Many  things  have  necessarily  been 
omitted  or  barely  touched  upon  in  this 
discussion;  but  I  think  that  you  will 
agree  with  me,  that  enough  has  been 
said  to  show  that  the  application  of  the 
principles  of  the  Negative  Higher  Criti- 
cism to  the  New  Testament,  by  the  Mod- 
ern School  of  Critics,  Kas  neither  been 
truly  Critical  nor  in  any  proper  sense 
Scientific. 


President  Hall:  In  concluding  this 
session  of  the  Convention,  if  it  is  your 
pleasure  to  remain  for  a  few  minutes 
longer,  I  know  we  shall  be  greatly  priv- 
ileged in  listening  to  two  short  addresses. 
I  would  ask  Prof.  Jesse  B.  Thomas, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  Newton  Theological  In- 


stitution, Newton  Center,  Mass.,  if  he 
will  kindly  step  to  the  platform.  He 
will  be  followed  by  Dr.  Edward  P.  In- 
gersoll,  of  the  American  Bible  Society. 
I  am  glad  to  introduce  to  you  Professor 
Thomas,  who  will  now  take  up  the  dis- 
cussion. 


ADDRESS     OF    PROF.     JESSE     B.     THOMAS 
'Some  Conditions  and  Changes  Bearing   on  the  Present  Issue" 


I  congratulate  myself  that  I  have  not 
prepared  any  formal  address  for  this  oc- 
casion. I  understood  from  the  program 
that  the  "discussion"  was  to  be  an  im- 
promptu commenting  on  what  has  been 
said  by  those  who  have  prepared  formal 
papers.  Surely,  what  has  been  thus  far 
said  has  been  sufficiently  elaborate  and 
minute  to  make  extended  comment  un- 
necessary. I  will,  however,  allude  to  two 
or  three  points  that  suggest  themselves 
in  connection  with  some  of  these  dis- 
courses. 

But  before  proceeding  to  their  direct 
discussion  let  me  allude  to  what  seem 
to  me  to  be 

I.  Some  peculiar  conditions  of  the 
time  a£fecting  the  question  in  hand. 


I  think  it  worth  remembering  that  the 
Christian  ministry  of  the  day  has 
fallen,  or  is  rapidly  falling,  almost  exclu- 
sively into  the  hands  of  very  young  men. 
Had  that  brilliant  member  of  the  British 
Parliament,  who  once  so  passionately  de- 
fended himself  against  the  "atrocious 
crime  of  being  a  young  man,"  lived  in 
our  day,  the  burden  would  have  been 
found  to  have  shifted:  his  defense  must 
now  be  against  the  charge  that  he  is  no 
longer  young — at  least,  if  he  be  a  minis- 
ter. It  is  true  that  men  do  not  yet  resort 
to  novices  in  medicine  to  deal  with  their 
bodies;  nor  to  allow  experimenters  in 
law  to  take  care  of  their  property;  but, 
in  the  management  of  their  souls,  they 
seem  to  h9.vc  concluded  that  age  and  ex- 


6z 


perience  disqualify  rather  than  commend. 
Now  the  young  man,  as  yet  unsobered 
by  experience  and  personal  observation 
of  the  mutability  of  even  "scientific"  con- 
clusions, is  apt  to  be  instinctively  tempt- 
ed to  over-confidence  in,  and  adventur- 
ous utterance  of,  new  opinions.  Having 
a  reputation  to  make,  he  is  peculiarly 
sensitive  to  the  remembered  cautions  of 
his  instructors,  not  to  "fall  into  ruts"; 
he  is  easily  moved  by  the  common  senti- 
ment, and  perhaps  the  fear  of  the  con- 
tempt, of  his  ambitious  classmates;  he  is 
keenly  alert  to  know  what  will  bring 
blame  or  praise  from  the  secular  press. 
He  shrinks,  therefore,  with  peculiar 
dread  from  the  epithet  "traditionalist." 
Whatever  else  befall,  he  will  not  allow 
it  to  be  suspected  that  he  is  ignorant  of, 
or  that  he  has  failed  to  adopt,  the  "as- 
sured results"  of  the  latest  scholarship. 
He  is  tempted  accordingly  to  reconcile 
himself  with  the  scholarly  Zeitgeist,  as 
he  understands  it,  by  passive,  if  not 
overt,  assent  to  the  new  views. 

Another  notable  circumstance  is  the 
recently  rapid  growth  of  emphasis  upon, 
and  extension  of  range  of,  linguistic 
study,  in  our  theological  institutions.  In- 
structors and  courses  of  study  in  Hebrew 
and  Greek  and  their  cognate  Biblical 
addenda,  have  multiplied  surprisingly  at 
the  expense  of  the  other  departments  of 
the  theological  curriculum.  Expert  ac- 
quaintance with  Hebrew  and  Greek  has 
become  a  generally  recognized  sine  qua 
non  for  commendation  to  the  churches  as 
a  suitably  equipped  candidate  for  the  pul- 
pit. And  in  some  institutions  the  ability 
to  read  Greek  fluently  is  practically 
treated  as  an  infallible  test  of  the  gen- 
uineness of  a  call  to  preach,  since  the 
applicant  is  refused  permission  even  to 
begin  his  theological  studies  without  it. 
So  high  an  estimate  of  the  relative  place 
of  linguistic  skill  in  ministerial  efficiency 
lends  a  factitious  importance  to  those 
disturbing  controversies  concerning  the 
origin  and  authority  of  the  books  of  the 
Bible,  which  here  interest  us.  They  are, 
in  fact,  but  incidental  to  the  intelligent 
study  of  the  languages  themselves,  yet 
they  have  become  inextricably  inter- 
woven with,  and  in  our  time  virtually  in- 


separable from  that  study.  To  ignore 
them  is  to  invoke  the  ready  sneer  of 
culpable  ignorance  of,  or  incompetence 
to  appreciate,  the  modern  methods  of 
"Bible  study." 

Again,  with  increasing  emphasis  on 
linguistic  technique,  comes  the  call  to 
more  minute  anatomical  dissection  and 
histological  analysis  of  the  text  of  Scrip- 
ture. This  pains-taking  and  subtle  art 
has  come  to  its  height  in  Germany.  It 
is  there  that  the  white  light  of  the  old 
Book  has  been  resolved  into  its  poly- 
chromatic elements — by  what  may,  in  a 
double  sense,  be  called  (considering  the 
number  of  spectres  from  E  to  P  evoked 
in  the  process)  a  kind  of  sp'^ctral 
analysis. 

Now  we  all  doubtless  recall  the  old 
quip  which  in  distributing  fit  fields  of 
activity  for  each  nation  assigned  to 
France  the  earth,  to  England  the  sea,  and 
to  Germany  the  air.  Or,  to  refer  to  Sir 
Arthur  Helps'  characterization,  the 
Frenchman,  if  called  upon  to  describe 
a  camel  would  hasten  to  the  Jardin  des 
Plantes  to  study  his  subject  there;  the 
Englishman  would  pack  his  valise  and 
hie  away  to  the  desert  to  find  the  crea- 
ture in  its  habitat;  while  the  German 
would  sit  down  calmly  in  his  study  to 
construct  a  camel  out  of  his  own  con- 
sciousness. The  German  tendency  to  the 
speculative  reconstruction  of  all  things, 
is,  in  any  case,  unmistakable  and  uni- 
versally recognized.  His  world  and  his 
Bible  are  apt  to  go  with  his  tobacco 
into  the  philosophic  pipe,  where  all  are 
alike  sublimated  into  smoke.  So  long  as 
these  fantastic  smoke-wreaths  ascended 
within  the  lecture-room,  there  was  little 
danger  that  they  might  be  mistaken  as 
anything  more  than  unsubstantial  crea- 
tures of  the  mind.  The  veteran  Delitzsch, 
who  in  his  later  years  yielded  re- 
luctant and  partial  assent  to  some  of 
these  products  of  modern  critical  ingen- 
uity, earnestly  protested  against  the  at- 
tempt to  popularize  them — they  were,  for 
some  time  to  come,  to  be  treated  as,  at 
the  best,  the  unverified  guesses  of  ex- 
perimentalists— working  hypotheses  only. 
But  it  may  be  said  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
race,  at  large,  as  John  Hall  once  said  of 


63 


the  Yankee,  when  speaking  of  the  impor- 
tation of  the  drink-habit  from  the  old 
world — "It  is  a  serious-minded  race,  im- 
porting nothing  that  it  does  not  amplify 
and  make  practical."  Beginning  with 
certain  English  scholars,  who  denounced 
it  as  cowardly  not  to  announce  boldly 
to  the  people,  and  propagate,  the  "as- 
sured results  of  criticism,"  there  has  been 
a  steady  disposition  to  insist  on  the  pop- 
ularization of  the  whole  Hexateuchal 
scheme.  This  being  undertaken,  with 
whatever  qualifications  and  reservations, 
by  men  whose  ability,  candor,  and  Chris- 
tian temper  were  above  just  suspicion, 
the  effect  upon  the  untechnical  hearer,  as 
well  as  upon  the  plastic  and  confiding 
student,  has  often  been  perplexing  if  not 
disastrous. 

Among  the  lectures  constituting  the 
first  series  delivered  in  Boston  under  the 
auspices  of  the  American  Institute  of 
Sacred  Literature,  one  was  given  by  a 
man  whose  name  is  justly  revered  for 
his  scholarship  and  whose  personality  is 
tenderly  remembered  as  illustrative  of 
Christian  devotion.  In  his  eagerness  to 
encourage  the  introduction  of  the  new 
conceptions  of  the  Bible  into  Sunday 
School  instruction  he  so  emphasized  the 
mythical  quality  of  Old  Testament  nar- 
ratives, and  so  magnified  the  contradic- 
tions of  the  New  Testament  and  the  in- 
firmities of  its  style,  as  thoroughly  to 
mystify  his  simple-minded  hearers.  One 
good  lady  next  day  remarked  to  her 
Bible  class  teacher  that,  while  some  of 
the  hard  stories  of  the  Old  Testament 
had  once  given  her  trouble,  she  now 
cared  no  more  for  their  eccentricities 
than  for  those  of  .^sop's  Fables.  A 
bright  young  man  in  one  of  my  classes 
had  been  called  upon  to  read  and  report 
upon  that  passage  in  Theodore  Parker's 
writings  in  which  he  magnifies  the  au- 
thority of  intuition  as  the  final  arbiter  in 
religion — saying,  substantially,  "if  any- 
thing in  Scripture  grates  upon  your  in- 
stincts, re-examine  it  to  see  that  it  is 
susceptible  of  no  fair  reconstruction  to 
which  you  can  rationally  agree;  failing 
to  find  this,  let  the  Scripture  go  and  stick 
to  your  intuition."  The  young  man  com- 
pleted his  rehearsal  of  this  advice,  with 


the  statement  that  he  perfectly  agreed 
with  the  view  expressed.  When  I  sug- 
gested to  him,  that  this  theory  would 
have  brought  serious  trouble  to  Abra- 
ham, when  called  of  God  to  sacrifice  his 
son,  his  answer  was  instantaneous  and 
conclusive:  "I  find  no  difficulty  there; 
for  I  do  not  believe  the  Abraham  inci- 
dent ever  happened."  This  confident  and 
prompt  avowal  of  disbelief  was  unex- 
pected and  surprising.  I  remembered 
the  story  of  President  Wayland,  who 
when  a  member  of  one  of  his  classes, 
met  his  psychological  teachings  with  the 
question,  "What  would  you  say  were  I 
to  tell  you  that,  in  coming  down  the 
street  this  morning,  I  had  seen  the  op- 
posite lamp-posts  leave  their  places  and 
come  waltzing  down  the  street  to- 
gether?" "I  should  ask  you  where  you 
had  been,  my  son,"  gravely  replied  the 
good  Doctor.  Asking  a  like  question  of 
the  progressive  young  man  in  my  class 
I  was  informed  that  he,  too,  had  been  a 
hearer  of  the  lecture  in  question.  It  is 
not  to  be  inferred  or  even  suspected 
that  the  lecturer  had  any  positively 
sceptical  intent,  or  a  fear  that  he  would 
create  any.  But  doubt  is  easy  to  create 
and  hard  to  stifle:  nor  is  it  less  danger- 
ous because  inadvertently  fostered. 
Tares  once  sown,  by  whatever  hand  and 
with  whatever  motive,  grow  apace.  It 
would  be  better  that  they  were  left  to 
be  sown  by  "an  enemy;"  but  the  result 
is  not  less  deadly  if  the  band  be  that  of 
a  friend. 

Bearing  in  mind  the  plasticity  of  a 
young  ministry,  fresh  from  scholastic 
scenes  and  ambitions,  the  supreme  em- 
phasis on  linguistic  proficiency  as  a 
credential  of  scholarship,  the  increasing 
reverence  for,  and  dominance  of,  Ger- 
man methods,  and  the  growing  disposi- 
tion to  popularize  the  supposed  final  con- 
clusions of  the  critics, — 

II.  Let  us  notice  some  Specious  and 
often  Incongruous  Results. 

I.  The  Substitution  of  a  Critical  for 
the  Orthodox  Tradition. 

My  beloved  and  reverend  friend  Dr. 
Howard  Osgood — one  of  the  foremost 
Biblical  scholars  in  America — has  made 
plain  in  his  unanswerable  paper  the  iden- 


64 


tity  of  the  positions  of  the  new  critics — 
even  the  conservative  section  of  them — 
with  those  of  the  rampant  infidelity  of 
a  century  ago.  He  might  have  gone  fur- 
ther: for  there  is  as  pronounced  a  ten- 
dency to  cyclic  return  of  identical  no- 
tions in  the  school  of  so-called  "free 
thought,"  as  elsewhere.  The  sceptical 
"tradition"  is  more  fragmentary  and  in- 
termittent, yet  none  the  less  real  than 
that  of  orthodoxy. 

When  Renan,  a  little  while  ago,  sug- 
gested that  the  story  of  the  Resurrection 
sprang  first  from  the  excited  report  of  a 
hysterical  woman,  he  was  applauded  as 
the  inventor  of  a  novel  and  ingenious 
explanation;  but  the  theory  is  as  old  as 
Celsus  in  the  second  century.  The  au- 
thors of  the  "Essays  and  Reviews" 
created  a  sensation  by  insisting  that  the 
occurrence  of  certain  alien  words  in 
Daniel  makes  it  incredible  that  it  should 
have  been  written  at  so  early  a  date  as 
commonly  believed — an  objection  inces- 
santly reiterated  by  later  critics;  but 
Porphyry  had  made  the  same  discovery 
and  offered  the  same  argument  against 
authenticity  in  the  third  century.  An 
influential  educator  and  editor  in  this 
country  had  the  temerity  to  make  the 
published  statement  not  long  ago,  that 
up  to  twenty-five  years  before,  nobody 
had  ever  doubted  that  the  "day"  of  Gen- 
esis was  a  period  of  twenty-four  hours. 
He  had  surely  failed  to  observe  that  Cel- 
sus, again,  had  ridiculed  Moses  for  hav- 
ing spoken  of  "days"  before  the  appear- 
ance of  the  sun;  that  Augustine,  among 
others,  noticing  the  difficulty,  had  de- 
clared the  term  to  allude  to  a  "day  of 
God,"  which  could  not  be  limited  to 
twenty-four  hours;  and  that  one  after  an- 
other of  the  Fathers,  as  well  as  of  the 
Medieval  writers,  had  recognized  the  in- 
congruity and  grappled  with  the  diffi- 
culty of  the  twenty-four  hour  interpre- 
tation —  a  difficulty  which  lies  open  in 
the  record  itself,  and  which  they  must 
have  been  stupid  indeed  not  to  have  ob- 
served, even  if  not  compelled  by  the 
sneers  of  cavilers. 

Now  let  the  young  man,  in  the  pulpit 
or  the  pew,  who  is  afraid  of  becoming 
the  bond-slave  of  "tradition"  or  human 


authority — who  is  charmed  with  the  ex- 
hortation to  "think  things  out  for  him- 
self"— observe  that  the  moment  he  ven- 
tures to  attempt  the  formation  or  utter- 
ance of  an  independent  opinion  as  to  the 
integrity  or  genuineness  of  any  Scriptur- 
al document,  he  is  certain  to  be  con- 
fronted with  the  demand  that  he  accept 
the  verdict  of  the  "world's  scholarship" 
as  a  finality  in  the  premises.  He  may  not 
meddle  with  matters  that  belong  exclu- 
sively to  "experts,"  and  upon  which  they 
have  already  reached  an  authoritative 
consensus  of  opinion.  Instead  of  being 
set  free  from  tradition,  in  this  way,  he 
has  only  been  transferred  from  one  bond- 
age to  another.  He  must  not,  under 
penalty  of  ostracism  from  the  realm  of 
"scholarship,"  accept  the  concurrent  con- 
clusions of  the  Christian  thinkers  of  the 
ages  which  have  undergone  the  scientific 
test  as  "survivors"  in  the  "struggle  for 
life;"  but  he  must,  under  the  same  pen- 
alty, accept  as  obligatory  the  arbitrary 
results  of  a  headlong  and  as  yet  unveri- 
fied series  of  speculative  flights  of  fancy! 

He  must  bow  submissively  to  the  "spe- 
cialist," forsooth.  The  "specialist"  in 
what?  Does  the  mastery  of  daghesh 
forte  and  the  subscript  iota  forthwith 
give  a  man  exclusive  claim  to  precedence 
in  all  realms,  scientific,  historical,  philo- 
sophical, and  theological,  as  well  as  lit- 
erary? The  very  nature  of  his  work  as  a 
specialist  renders  him  less  fit  for  the  set- 
tlement of  broader  questions.  No  lawyer 
needs  to  be  reminded  that  the  testimony 
of  the  detective,  or  technical  expert  of 
any  kind,  is  least  credited  by  the  common 
sense  of  the  ordinary  juryman.  Such  a 
witness  has  seen  the  facts  through  a 
theoretically  narrowed  or  distorted  eye, 
and,  inadvertently  or  otherwise,  reshaped 
them  to  fit  his  mental  preconception. 
The  enthusiastic  exploration  of  verbal 
niceties  does  not  fit  for  synthetic  judg- 
ment of  the  whole.  Who  would  choose 
a  watchmaker,  rather  than  a  sailor,  to 
scan  the  horizon  and  shape  the  vessel's 
course? 

2.  As  to  the  recoil  of  the  Highe\ 
Criticism  upon  the   New  Testament. 

We  have  been  reminded,  in  the  lucid 
and   instructive   paper    of   Dr.   Wolf,   of 


65 


the  auspicious  advent,  and  early  decay 
and  vanishing,  of  the  Tiibingen  Theory. 
There  is  so  close  a  parallelism  between 
that  theory  and  the  Hexateuchal  scheme, 
that  the  one  may  naturally  have  sug- 
gested the  other.  In  both,  an  attack  is 
made  upon  the  historic  verity  .  of  the 
sacred  record  by  a  like  indirect  route. 
Accepting  the  Pauline  Epistles,  in  part, 
as  genuine  it  was  easily  insinuated  by 
Baur  that  there  appeared  upon  their  face 
evidence  of  an  early  Pauline  and  Petrine, 
Prophetic  and  Priestly,  Doctrinal  and 
Ritualistic,  partition  in  the  Church. 
Here  was  basis  enough  to  formulate  a 
theory  of  "tendency,"  in  rival  writers,  to 
reshape  history  for  the  support  of  one 
segment  or  the  other  or  the  reconcilia- 
tion of  the  two.  All  the  historic  docu- 
ments of  the  New  Testament  thus  lost 
historic  significance,  and  became  cam- 
paign documents  in  which  the  facts  were 
warped  to  suit  the  occasion. 

The  same  process  has  been  followed  in 
dealing  with  the  Old  Testament:  only, 
now,  some  of  the  Minor  Prophets  have 
been  arbitrarily  fixed  upon  as  exclusively 
reliable.  From  this  coign  of  vantage 
there  has  been  a  like  bombardment  of 
the  historic  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
They,  too,  are  said  to  have  been  "re- 
dacted" and  the  facts  imaginatively  re- 
shaped, or  their  borders  enlarged  with 
shifting  prismatic  colors,  to  suit  the  ends 
of  "Priestly"  or  "Prophetic"  contestants 
for  mastery:  so  that  they  also  are  revela- 
tions of  struggling  "tendencies,"  rather 
than  veracious  records  of  fact.  Let  us 
hope  that  as  their  spirit  and  method  are 
identical,  the  already  realized  fate  of  the 
one  theory  may  prove  a  true  augury  of 
the  coming  issue  of  the  other. 

When  the  Kuenen-Wellhausen  theories 
were  broached  in  England,  it  was  with 
the  precautionary  reassurance,  that  they 
could  never  be  made  to  react  upon  the 
New  Testament.  The  Old  Testament 
was  said  to  be  out  of  historic  reach,  but 
the  New  Testament  too  impregnably  for- 
tified by  contemporaneous  testimony  to 
be  historically  discredited.  Singularly 
enough,  the  application  of  destructive 
speculative  canons  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  almost  imniediately  followed 

66 


by  the  recovery  of  a  clue  to  the  sealed 
papyrus  rolls  of  early  Egypt,  in  the  Ro- 
setta  Stone;  and  by  the  uncovering  of 
the  clay  tablets  of  Babylon  and  Nineveh 
with  a  speedy  recognition  of  the  Behis- 
tun  Inscription  as  a  key  to  the  long  hid- 
den cuneiform  records  in  them.  These 
events,  with  the  later  disclosure  of  the 
Tell  El  Amarna  tablets,  not  only  refuted 
the  alleged  impossibility  of  written  rec- 
ords in  Mosaic  times,  but  showed  an  ad- 
vanced stage  of  civilization  and  inter- 
communication in  those  remote  ages 
which  seriously  endangered  the  whole 
argument  of  the  disintegrators.  The 
work  still  goes  on.  .  "We  have  already 
dug  up  Homer;  we  shall  yet  dig  up  the 
Bible,"  confidently  said  Professor  Sayce. 

The  Old  Testament  is  fast  becoming 
as  accessible  to  contemporaneous  tests 
as  the  New.  The  methods  of  speculative 
assault  upon  each  being  identical,  it  was 
inevitable  that  the  wave  of  doubt  which 
has  advanced  so  far  upon  the  Old,  in 
spite  of  archaeological  countercheck, 
should  return  upon  the  New.  We  find 
accordingly  a  revival  of  sharp  attack 
upon  the  central  facts  of  the  Gospel  his- 
tory: the  virgin  birth,  the  literal  resur- 
rection, the  miracles,  and  the  like. 
Those  who  cling  to  evangelical  faith  con- 
tent themselves  with  the  bland  assur- 
ance, that  in  all  this  only  the  concrete 
facts  are  jeopardized,  but  no  essential 
doctrine.  Do  they  forget  the  uniqueness 
of  Christianity  among  religions,  in  that 
it  alone  rests  on  a  historic  foundation? 
Do  they  ignore  Paul's  assertion  that  "if 
Christ  be  not  risen  our  preaching  is  vain, 
and  your  faith  is  also  -.in?"  Chris- 
tianity rests  on  foundation- ;  of  fact:  and 
"if  the  foundations  be  destroyed,  what 
can  the  righteous  do?" 

3.  The  Elusive  Use  of  Terms  in  Con- 
nection with  the  Higher  Criticism. 

Dr.  Burrell  and  Dr.  Booth  have 
spoken  eloquently  and  trenchantly  of  the 
disingenuous  use  of  words  in  connection 
with  the  advocacy  of  the  new  theories. 
The  peril,  as  well  as  the  unfairness,  of 
"paltering  in  a  double  sense,"  can  not 
be  too  earnestly  emphasized.  A  certain 
preacher  in  Chicago  was  pastor  of  "the 
Church  of  the  Messiah."    He  averred  in 


one  of  his  sermons  that  Jesus  was  not 
the  only  Messiah;  but  that  Moses,  Isaiah, 
Paul,  and  Savonarola  were  each,  in  his 
time,  equally  Messiahs;  Berthold  Auer- 
bach  being  the  Messiah  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  And  yet  he  did  not  have  the 
grace  to  inform  his  audience  to  which  of 
these  Messiahs  his  church  was  dedicated. 
One  is  reminded  of  Dr.  Bushnell's  fa- 
mous tirade  against  "dictionary"  bond- 
age in  the  preface  of  one  of  his  works 
that  had  been  criticized  for  its  misuse 
of  language  and  its  disregard  for  logic. 
He  averred  that  no  assault  upon  his  po- 
sitions reinforced  by  help  of  the  diction- 
ary or  logic  would  be  of  the  least  avail. 
He  should  disregard  all  such  things  irf 
the  future,  since  his  arguments  would 
not  be  in  the  least  damaged  by  being 
proved  absurd.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  un- 
dertook a  reply  in  "The  Princeton  Re- 
view," but  with  the  disconcerting  pref- 
aratory  remark:  "Why,  Dr.  Bushnell 
laughs  at  syllogisms  as  a  ghost  would 
at  a  musket!"  He  who  uses  words  in  a 
sliding  or  vacuous  sense  needs  to  be 
challenged,  first  of  all,  to  throw  off  the 
mask  of  illusive  speech,  and  "deliver  him- 
self like  a  man  of  this  world." 

What  is  meant,  for  instance,  by  the 
claim  that  the  Higher  Criticism  is,  in  its 
ultimate  aims,  "constructive?"  Criticism 
is  simply  judgment;  and  judgment  deals 
with  an  existing  thing,  approving  it, 
modifying  it,  or  repudiating  it.  Its  func- 
tion is  never  creative.  The  alleged  con- 
struction of  the  existing  document  is  in 
too  many  cases  the  substitution  of  a 
wholly  different  record  purely  suppositi- 
tious in  character.  The  actual  testimony 
of  the  ancient  writer  is  sublimated  into  a 
vaporous  cloud:  then  out  of  the  cloud  the 
dextrous  imagination  of  the  critic  evokes 
something  which,  he  suggests,  is  "very 
like  a  whale,"  and  this  phantasm  of  the 
brain  ends  the  constructive  process! 

Again,  what  is  the  force  of  the  fre- 
quent invidious  suggestion  that  this 
method  of  dealing  with  the  text  is  in  a 
peculiar,  if  not  an  exclusive,  sense,  "his- 
toric?" The  historic  method  is  primarily 
objective  and  inductive.  If  an  alleged 
ancient  title-deed  or  other  document 
were  presented  in  a  court  of  justice,  it 


would  be  treated  as  prima  facie  genuine. 
But,  if  its  genuineness  were  questioned, 
the  normal  appeal  would  be  first  of  all 
to  external  circumstance  as  confirmatory 
or  discrediting;  whether  it  comes  from  a 
normal  place  of  deposit,  in  whose  hands 
the  property  rests,  what  does  family  his- 
tory or  common  tradition  say,  etc.  It 
is  only  when  discrepancies  appear,  or 
evidences  of  later  alteration  or  addition 
are  made  clear,  that  the  process  of  docu- 
mentary criticism  (which  is  not  in  the 
proper  sense  historic  at  all)  normally  be- 
gins. Even  then  every  intendment  in  fa- 
vor of  the  integrity  and  consistency  of 
the  document  will  be  judicially  indulged. 
But  this  order  of  inquiry,  wrought  out 
and  confirmed  as  legitimate  by  the  ex- 
perience of  ages,  is  suddenly  reversed  by 
the  method  of  to-day.  It  begins  with 
the  process  of  documentary  analysis,  and 
rests  its  judgment  wholly  on  inferential 
conclusions  therefrom.  Professing  to 
move  inductively,  it  treads  the  "high  a 
priori  road"  from  the  beginning.  It  ig- 
nores what  is  affirmed  to  have  happened, 
in  behalf  of  what,  it  is  theoretically  con- 
cluded, ought  to  have  happened.  In 
default  of  historically  identifiable  char- 
acters, to  whom  to  attribute  the  disjecta 
membra  of  the  dissected  documents,  it 
invents  a  list,  lengthening  with  each  new 
emergency.  It  thus  dissipates  the  actual 
testimony  into  myth,  and  proceeds  by  a 
sort  of  irresponsible,  oracular,  literary 
divination  to  write  a  substitutionary  doc- 
ument therefor.  Were  any  lawyer  to  deal 
with  the  witnesses  summoned,  as  some 
of  the  critics  have  dealt  with  the  Evan- 
gelists (their,  as  well  as  our,  only  con- 
temporary witnesses),  he  would  be 
laughed  out  of  court.  How  would  it 
sound  for  him  to  say  to  the  jury:  "These 
are  the  only  witnesses  in  the  case.  But  I 
ask  you  to  dismiss  most  of  their  testi- 
mony as  unreliable.  Instead,  thereof,  let 
me  suggest  that  you  listen  to  my  theory 
of  the  case,  and  allow  me  to  reconstruct 
their  testimony  according  thereto.  It  is 
true  you  will  not  then  rely  upon  what 
they  have  said,  but  how  much  safer  it 
will  be  to  accept  what  an  expert  thinks 
they  ought  to  have  said." 
Once   more,   what   are   we   to   under- 


67 


stand  by  the  claim  that  higher  criticism 
alone  proceeds  according  to  the  "scien- 
tific" method?  That  method  requires  us 
to  accept  the  phenomenal  as  prima  facie 
real,  and  to  proceed  inductively  from 
facts  near  and  known  to  the  remoter  and 
unknown.  The  Bible  is  itself  a  fact;  it 
is  inwoven  with  the  web  of  the  world's 
history  in  a  creative  way;  it  lies  at  the 
heart  of  the  literary  and  spiritual  forces 
that  move  mankind  to-day.  It  cannot  be 
intelligently  studied  apart  from  these 
environing  conditions  and  the  pre- 
sumptions in  its  favor  thereby  engen- 
dered. 

It  is  wholly  unscientific,  then,  to  ig- 
nore these  imperative  preliminary  con- 
siderations, and  treat  the  Bible  "just  like 
any  other  book."  A  book,  for  the  per- 
manent certification  of  the  origin  of 
which  the  Jews  have  been  so  marvelous- 
ly  preserved  to  a  "life  beyond  life;"  a 
book  that  has  lifted  that  segment  of  the 
earth  which  we  call  Christendom  to  so 
marked  exaltation  above  the  rest;  a  book 
that  has  been  the  indisputable  anteced- 
ent, if  not  the  cause,  of  the  highest 
phases  of  intellectual,  ethical  and  politi- 
cal advance,  and  that  still  holds  its  place 


in  the  affections  of  the  ripest  peoples, 
and  outtops  the  highest  spiritual  ideals 
of  the  twentieth  century — cannot  be  thus 
ignominiously  flung  into  the  tide  of  pro- 
miscuous literature  as  "just  like  any 
other  book." 

Telescopy  can  get  no  justice  while  you 
regard  the  telescope  as  "just  like  any 
other  brass;"  and  count  the  only  legi- 
timate form  of  "study"  of  it  to  be  chemi- 
cal analysis  of  its  metallic  constituents, 
or  curious  speculation  based  on  the  half- 
effaced  name  of  its  constructor.  Would 
it  not  be  more  "scientific"  to  point  it 
heavenward,  and  by  its  help  get  better 
vision  of  the  stars? 

The  new  Jerusalem  can  never  be  meas- 
ured by  a  carpenter's  foot-rule;  nor  can 
mere  linguistic  or  other  technical  trig- 
onometry ever  gauge  or  fitly  judge  the 
nature  or  source  of  the  written  Word, 
which,  as  truly  as  the  Incarnate  Word, 
has  proven  itself  irreducible  to  purely  hu- 
man standards  of  measurement.  Let  the 
literary  anatomist  deal  with  his  dead 
subjects.  The  dissecting  knife  is  not  the 
fit,  much  less  the  only  fit,  apparatus 
wherewith  most  effectively  to  "study" 
the  Living  Word. 


President  Hall:    The  next  speaker  on      tive  of  The  American  Bible  Society,  at 


the  program  will  be  Rev.  Edward  P. 
Ingersoll,  D.D.,  of  this  city.  Secretary 
of  the  American  Bible  Society.  Dr.  In- 
gersoll has  returned  from  Great  Brit- 
ain whither  he  went  as  the  representa- 


the  Centenary  of  The  British  and  For- 
eign Bible  Society.  He  brings  back  a 
cheering  report  of  the  victories  of  the 
Bible  during  the  past  century  and  of 
the  present  outlook. 


ADDRESS    OF     REV.     DR.     E.     P.     INGERSOLL 
"A  Century's  Victories  of  the  Bible" 


It  is  reported  that  Voltaire  once  said 
that  it  took  twelve  men  to  found  Chris- 
tianity, but  that  he  would  show  the 
world  how  easily  one  man  could  over- 
throw it.  He  was  confident  that  it  would 
be  overthrown  by  the  new  discoveries 
of  that  age  and  would  not  survive  the 
century.  Well,  the  Bible  has  gone  on 
for  a  century,  and  Christianity  still  sur- 
vives and  extends,  and  we  believe  that 
the  house  where  Voltaire  uttered  his 
boast  is  now  a  depot  for  Bibles.  Its  ex- 
perience with  Voltaire  gives  us  courage 
in  the  new  conflicts  with  error  and  unbelief. 


Its  experience  in  the  conflicts  of  the  past 
century,  as  I  have  recently  heard  it,  is  an 
inspiration  to  new  faith  and  a  higher 
courage. 

I  am  in  hearty  sympathy  with  the 
Bible  League,  because  it  has  a  conserva- 
tive and  yet  positive  aim  with  regard 
to  the  Bible.  Those  who  have  asso- 
ciated themselves  together  as  members 
of  this  League  thoroughly  believe  that 
we  ought  to  say  to  our  countrymen  and 
to  Christendom  "We  believe  in  the 
Scriptures  as  inspired  of  God  and  as  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  in  practise." 


68 


Like  our  fathers  we  are  holding  fast  to 
the  "Eternal  Word." 

We  have  not  organized  for  contention 
with  others,  but  rather  that  we  may 
strengthen  each  other's  hands,  and,  if 
possible,  be  a  help  to  great  multitudes 
who  are  being  disturbed  by  the  destruc- 
tive criticism  of  these  latter  days.  We 
wish  to  say  to  them  that  this  is  no  new 
thing,  but  that  the  assaults  upon  the 
integrity  of  the  Bible  have,  through  the 
centuries,  come  frequently  and  in  many 
guises.  Some  of  us  have  seen  the  Bible 
"overturned,'  time  and  time  again,  and 
yet,  after  a  little  anxiety,  we  have  found 
that  it  was  a  cube  and  stood  on  its  solid 
base  just  as  firmly  as  before  it  was 
"overturned." 

The  gentlemen  who  have  spoken  be- 
fore me,  have  drawn  attention  to  the 
unscientific  nature  of  Destructive  Criti- 
cism. Permit  me  to  add  that  I  regard 
it  as  unfair  as  well  as  unscientific,  be- 
cause it  seeks  to  tear  down  the  house  in 
which  I  have  been  living  before  it  pro- 
vides for  me  a  better  house  to  live  in. 
I  object  to  it  again  as  being  unfair  be- 
cause, for  the  most  part,  the  work  is  not 
done  reverently.  If  I  gave  myself  to 
this  destructive  criticism,  bearing  down 
upon  Genesis  or  Isaiah,  or  the  Wonders 
of  the  Old  Testament  or  the  Miracles 
of  the  New,  I  am  confident  that  my  best 
friends  would  whisper  to  me,  "You  are 
not  reverent."  I  have  a  strong  and 
steady  conviction  that  every  man  who 
would  be  a  thorough  teacher  of  Bible 
lore,  so  as  to  discriminate  between  what 
is  divine  and  what  is  human  must 
have  a  very  devout  spirit.  And  be- 
yond this,  ought  it  not  to  make  every 
critic  very  cautious  when  he  considers 
that  there  are  a  hundred  different  forms 
and  statements  in  this  Book  which  men 
are  criticising?  They  stand  up  and  con- 
fer together, — finally  one  says,  "I  do 
not  criticise  that  book  or  that  statement, 
but  I  criticise  this  book  and  this  state- 
ment; another  one  says,  "I  criticise  that 
which  you  approve  and  approve  that 
which  you  criticise;"  and  so  it  goes  on 
until  scores  of  them  have  uttered  their 
criticisms  and  you  find,  upon  investiga- 
tion,  that   no    two   of   them    absolutely 

69 


agree.  There  are  a  hundred  different 
roads  of  criticism,  and,  when  you  have 
gathered  all  of  the  critical  scholars  of 
the  world  together,  you  find  a  few  going 
in  this  path,  a  few  in  that  path,  and  a 
few  in  another  path;  while  every  one  of 
these  scholars  affirms  that  there  can  be 
only  one  path  that  is  right — and  that 
his  own.  This  thought  ought  to  make 
us  modest  when  we  come  to  the  criti- 
cism of  a  book  that  has  endured  the  test 
of  ages. 

THE   GREAT   BIBLE  MEETINGS  IN 
LONDON. 

I  have  been  requested  to  say  a  few 
words  in  regard  to  the  outcome  of  the 
Bible  work  in  the  last  century.  A  few 
weeks  ago  I  was  in  London,  as  the  rep- 
resentative of  the  American  Bible  So- 
ciety, at  the  Centenary  of  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society.  The  story 
of  what  the  Bible  has  done  for  mankind 
during  the  last  century,  as  I  heard  it 
there,  was  an  inspiration  of  faith. 

There  were  great  gatherings:  repre- 
sentatives of  the  royal  family,  distin- 
guished Christian  ministers  and  laymen, 
scholars  and  business  men — ten  thousand 
and  more — from  the  different  Protes- 
tant denominations,  twice  in  Albert 
Hall  and  once  in  St.  Paul's  Cathedral.  It 
was  delightful  and  reassuring  to  note  the 
enthusiasm  in  London  and  throughout 
the  whole  of  England.  There  were 
magnificent  audiences  everywhere,  and 
not  a  single  note  of  discord  was  struck. 
It  was  the  Bible,  as  the  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,  the  whole  Bible 
that  was  being  honored  as  the  means 
by  which  the  Nations  in  darkness  were 
being  enlightened  and  lifted  up  into  in- 
telligent and  Christian  manhood.  One 
evening  toward  the  last  of  March,  I 
spoke  to  a  large  gathering,  probably  a 
thousand  people,  in  Penrith,  near  the 
English  Lakes.  The  meeting  was  not 
held  in  a  church,  but  in  a  public  hall. 
At  the  close,  some  one  offered  a  resolu- 
tion which  was  substantially  the  state- 
ment of  the  aim  of  this  Bible  League. 
It  looked  to  the  Bible  as  giving  the 
blessings  of  our  civilization, — in  other 
words,  as  being  the  light  and  comfort 
for    time    and    for    eternity.      It    was    a 


popular  gathering  at  which  a  distin- 
guished lawyer  presided.  When  a  rising 
vote  upon  that  resolution  was  taken  I 
did  not  see  a  single  person  remain  seat- 
ed. One  of  the  Secretaries  of  the  Brit- 
ish and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  on  the 
first  Sunday  in  March  last,'  went  to 
Manchester  and  was  advertised  to  speak 
about  the  Bible  and  the  work  it  was  do- 
ing in  the  world.  The  meeting  was  in 
the  largest  public  hall  in  Manchester, 
seating  four  thousand  people;  it  was 
crowded  to  the  doors,  and  multitudes 
were  obliged  to  go  away  because  they 
could  not  gain  admission.  And  it  was 
all  to  hear  the  story  of  the  Bible  and  its 
achievements  from  the  lips  of  a  man 
not  especially  known  to  them,  who  was 
to  tell  them  of  the  work  of  the  Bible  in 
the  world. 

At  one  of  the  great  centennial  meet- 
ings in  London  (Tuesday  evening, 
March  8,)  our  Ambassador,  Hon.  Jo- 
seph H.  Choate,  stood  on  the  platform 
in  Queen's  Hall  and  gave  a  noble  testi- 
mony to  the  power  of  the  Bible  in  the 
early  American  life,  and  of  its  beneficent 
influence  which  continues  still;  and  he 
said,  amid  great  enthusiasm,  "I  believe 
that  Britain  and  America  are  destined 
to  carry  this  Bible,  its  liberty  and  its 
life  to  the  earth's  remotest  bounds." 
There  was  none  of  the  watchmaker  busi- 
ness, of  which  Dr.  Thomas  just  spoke, 
in  the  grand  utterances  of  our  Ambas- 
sador. 

Let  me  now  come  back  to  America, 
and  assure  you  that  my  own  observation 
and  the  testimony  of  many  friends  have 
convinced  me  that  the  pastors  who  have 
proclaimed  themselves  enthusiastic  ad- 
herents to  this  critical  spirit  which  is 
fastening  upon  the  Bible,  are  not  gain- 
ing in  influence  for  good.  I  rejoice  that 
there  are  multitudes  of  pastors  who  are 
holding  fast  to  the  form  of  sound  words; 
are  preaching  the  gospel  with  all  enthu- 
siasm; are  so  preaching  the  Word  that 


souls  are  converted,  comforted  and  es- 
tablished. The  church  of  which  I  am  a 
member  received  120  at  its  Communion 
in  April,  two-thirds  of  them  upon  pro- 
fession of  faith.  I  have  been  a  member 
of  that  church  for  two  years,  and  in  all 
that  time  have  not  heard  the  pastor 
name  "Higher  Criticism,"  or  touch  upon 
anything  that  verged  toward  it.  He  is 
preaching  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and 
preaching  Him  with  power,  and  strong 
men  and  multitudes  of  young  men  are 
coming  into  the  church.  How  in  con- 
trast is  this  with  the  case  of  a  young 
minister  with  whom  I  spoke  not  long 
ago.  I  said,  "Are  you  preaching  Higher 
Criticism?"  "Why,  of  course  I  am." 
"Why?"  "Because  my  people  will  think 
I  don't  know  anything  if  I  don't  preach 
the  Higher  Criticism."  May  he  get  over 
that  idea  of  delusion  and  folly! 

But  despite  the  skepticism  and  the  criti- 
cism the  Bible  has  been  more  and  more 
shedding  abroad  its  light  for  mankind. 
The  American  Bible  Society  in  eighty- 
seven  years  has  published  72,000,000  Bi- 
bles and  portions  of  the  Bible.  The  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society  in  one  hun- 
dred years  has  published  180,000,000  vol- 
umes. There  were  between  forty  and 
fifty  languages  into  which  the  Bible  was 
translated  when  the  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society  was  organized  in  1804, — 
there  are  now  four  hundred  and  seventy- 
four  languages  and  dialects  into  which 
the  Bible  and  portions  are  translated. 
All  of  the  centuries  to  the  nine- 
teenth gave  us  less  than  fifty  transla- 
tions; the  nineteenth  century  has  given 
us  at  least  four  hundred  and  thirty  new 
ones,  and  we  were  never  going  forward 
so  rapidly  as  now.  Men  are  asking  for 
this  Book  everywhere.  "Give  us  the 
wonderful  Book;"  and  all  through  the 
world  it  is  transforming  lives,  it  is  trans- 
forming nations.  Let  us  hold  fast  to  it 
for  it  is  the  plinth  that  supports  the 
glorious  temple  of  truth. 


President  Hall:  I  am  going  to  ask  hj^mn  I  will  call  your  attention  to  the 
Dr.  Burrell  if  he  will  give  us  a  closing  program  for  this  evening.  Under  the 
hymn,    and   while    he    is    selecting   that      Third  Special  Topic:   "The  Unscientific 

70 


Character  of  the  Prevailing  Higher 
Criticism,"  there  will  be  an  address  on 
"Its  Unscientific  Treatment  of  the  Facts 
of  Scripture;  or  Misdirected  Scholar- 
ship," by  Prof.  G.  Frederick  Wright, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  Oberlin  Theological 
Seminary,  Editor  of  the  "Bibliotheca 
Sacra."  He  will  be  followed  by  Prof. 
Robert  D.  Wilson,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  of 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  speak- 
ing for  Oriental  Scholarship;  and  by 
Rev.  M.  G.  Kyle,  D.D.,  of  Frankford, 
Philadelphia,  Pa.,  the  well-known  Egyp- 
tologist, representing  Archaeology.  The 
concluding  address  will  be  delivered  by 
Rev.  Robert  Mackenzie,  D.D.,  of  Rut- 
gers Riverside  Presbyterian  Church,  of 
this    city,    formerly    Professor    in    San 


Francisco  Theological  Seminary.  Now, 
I  am  sure,  there  will  be  a  real  feast  for 
all  lovers  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  I 
hope  you  will  not  only  come  yourselves, 
but  bring  your  friends. 

Dr.  Burrcll:  Let  us  sing  hymn  num- 
ber 370. 

"Come,  O  Creator,  Spirit  blest. 
And  in  our  souls  take  up  Thy  rest." 

President  Hall:  I  would  like  to  make 
a  special  request  that  all  of  the  speakers 
at  this  afternoon's  session  will  meet  here 
on  this  platform. 

After  the  singing  of  the  hymn  Dr.  Bur- 
rell   pronounced  the  benediction. 


^bird  Special  ^opic : 

THE     UNSCIENTIFIC     CHARACTER     OF     THE     PREVAIL- 
ING    HIGHER     CRITICISM  " 

WEDNESDAY    EVENING    SESSION,     MAY    4 

8:00  P.  M.     President  William  Phillips  Hall  in  the  Chair 


Prayer  by  Dr.  Burrell:  We  thank 
Thee,  O  God,  for  all  the  blessings  of 
the  day,  for  Thy  manifest  presence  with 
us  in  Thy  work.  We  thank  Thee  for  the 
high  privilege  of  service,  for  the  delight 
of  acknowledging  ourselves  to  be  labor- 
ers together  with  God.  We  thank  Thee 
for  the  revelation  of  Thyself  every  way 
unto  us.  We  glory  in  thy  blessed  Word. 
Be  with  us  here  to-night.  Sanctify  to 
us  every  moment  of  the  hour  that  we 
shall  spend  together,  and  help  us,  we 
pray,  to  glorify  Thee  in  all  that  we  do 
and  by  what  we  say  during  the  further 
sessions  of  this  Convention;  and  follow 
it  all  with  a  watering  from  Heaven,  "for 
Paul  may  plant  .  .  .  and  Apollos  may 
water,"  but  Thou  Thyself  must,  after 
all,  bring  about  the  increase.  Bless  the 
Truth;  give  it  power,  abundant  power; 
and  place  us  in  the  possession  of  truth 
with  clear  eyes  and  receptive  hearts,  for 
Jesus'  sake.    Amen! 

We  will  sing — 

"A  glory  gilds  the  sacred  page, 
Majestic  like  the  sun." 


Turn  to  Psalm  cxix.  We  have  been 
reading  over  and  over  again  in  it.  We 
will  begin  at  Cheth,  verse  57. 

(Responsive  reading  of  the  Psalm.) 

Dr.  Burrell:  Now,  will  Rev.  Dr.  Joach- 
im Elmendorf  offer  prayer. 

Prayer  by  Dr.  Joachim  Elmendorf: 
We  bless  Thee,  O  our  Christ,  that  we 
are  permitted  to  see  this  day.  We  bless 
Thee  that  Thy  people  have  aroused 
themselves  to  the  need  of  uttering  their 
convictions  as  to  the  preciousness  of 
this  blessed  Bible  which  Thou  hast  given 
us.  We  rejoice  that  there  are  so  many 
of  us  that  can  testify  that  it  speaks  to 
our  needs,  that  it  speaks  to  our  needs 
even  in  childhood,  in  youth,  in  young 
manhood;  and  when  the  inquiry  went 
up  from  our  lips,  "Lord,  what  wilt  Thou 
have  me  to  do?"  Thou  didst  then,  out 
of  Thy  blessed  Word,  show  us  the  way 
in  which  Thou  wouldst  have  us  walk. 
We  bless  Thee  that  Christendom  is  full 
of  those  who  think  they  are  called  upon 
to  testify  to  the  preciousness,  and  the 
guiding  power,  and  the  saving  power  of 


71 


this  Word  of  the  Living  God.  We  know 
it  is  Thine,  Tor  we  have  had  it  speak  to 
the  depths  of  our  souls.  Oh,  help  Thy 
people  to  come  together.  Help  them  to 
unite  in  the  testimony  that  shall  con- 
vince the  world  that  it  is  none  other 
than  the  Word  of  God.  Grant*  to  bless 
this  Convention.  Raise  up  those  that 
shall  speak  even  as  Thy  servants  have 
been  speaking,  to  the  convincing  and 
comforting  of  men.  And  the  men  who 
have  thought  they  have  believed  Thy 
Word,  men  who  have  thought  they 
loved  Thy  Word,  oh!  help  them  to  know 
more  and  more  its  preciousness  and  its 
power  from  the  testimony  of  those  who 
are  speaking  for  it  in  this  Convention. 
And  we  pray  that  Thou  wilt  carry  for- 
ward this  movement;  give  it  increasing 
membership;  give  increasing  devotion 
on  the  part  of  those  who  constitute  the 
movement.  Give  it,  we  pray  Thee,  more 
and  more  of  the  manifest  presence  of 
God  in  the  organization  and  in  its  prog- 
ress. Be  with  us  this  evening.  Grant 
that  all  the  words  that  are  spoken  may 
be  prompted  by  Thy  Holy  Spirit,  blessed 
by  Thy  Holy  Spirit,  and  reach  many 
minds  and  many  souls  with  convincing 
and  comforting  and  saving  power,  for 
Christ's  sake.  Amen! 
Dr.  Burrell:  Sing  No.  "jy, 
"I  love  the  volume  of  Thy  Word." 
President  Hall:  Despite  the  fact  that 
it  is  prayer-meeting  night  in  most  of 
the  city  churches,  you  see  that  we  have 


a  splendid  audience.  We  have  had 
good  audiences  during  all  our  sessions. 
We  had  as  many  here  this  morning  al- 
most as  we  have  at  this  present  mo- 
ment. This  afternoon  we  had  a  splen- 
did audience,  and  much  enthusiasm  was 
exhibited,  and  deep  interest  and  heart- 
felt sympathy  with  the  great  matters 
that  we  have  in  hand;  and  now  this 
evening  we  shall  continue  our  program. 
One  of  the  most  attractive  portions  is 
to  be  presented  in  the  addresses  that 
are  to  follow  before  the  close  of  the 
evening  service.  We  shall  aim  to  make 
the  session  as  short  as  may  be  consist- 
ent with  a  proper  handling  of  the  burn- 
ing subject  that  is  to  be  presented. 

It  gives  me  especial  pleasure  to  an- 
nounce the  Third  Special  Topic  under 
the  General  Topic,  "Groundlessness  of 
the  Present  Rationalistic  Claims," — the 
topic  of  the  evening:  "Unscientific  Char- 
acter of  the  Prevailing  Higher  Criti- 
cism." 

In  the  front  rank  among  the  scientific 
men  of  the  present  day  is  one  whose 
standing  as  a  scholar  I  do  not  think  is 
questioned  by  any  one, — who  will  ad- 
dress you  on  the  subject  of  the  evening, 
our  good  friend  and  beloved  brother  and 
honored  colleague  in  this  great  work, 
Prof.  G.  Frederick  Wright,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
of  Oberlin  Theological  Seminary,  Edi- 
tor of  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra.  I  have 
great  pleasure  in  introducing  Professor 
Wright. 


ADDRESS  OF  PROFESSOR  G.  FREDERICK   WRIGHT 
"Unscientific  Treatment  of  the  Facts  of  Scripture;   or,   Misdirected   Scholarship' 


I  call  attention  at  the  outset  to  the 
fact  that  this  is  no  talk  on  Higher  Crit- 
icism in  itself  considered.  In  reading 
the  program  you  will  see  that  there  is 
always  an  adjective  before  that  phrase. 
We  speak  of  the  Rationalistic  Higher 
Criticism;  of  the  Destructive  Higher 
Criticism;  and  in  the  subject  announced 
for  this  evening,  of  the  Prevailing 
Higher  Criticism.  We  are  speaking  of 
a  special  department  in  a  legitimate  line 
of  criticism;  for  we  are  all  critics.  It 
is  our  business,  in  the  first  place,  to  ex- 
amine, and  that  carefully,  all  the  facts^ 
The  very  first  principle  of  science  is  to 


know  the  facts  in  any  region  that  is  be- 
ing investigated, — to  be  sure  of  the  facts. 
The  whole  scientific  process  consists, 
first,  in  observation,  and  next  in  ex- 
plaining and  putting  together  those  ob- 
servations, that  you  may  increase  your 
knowledge;  and  this  we  all  do,  or  all 
profess  to  do. 

I  have  been  powerfully  impressed  dur- 
ing the  last  few  years,  in  the  course  of 
my  studies,  with  what  may  be  the  pro- 
duct of  our  educational  system,  or  of 
the  neglect  of  those  of  us  who  have 
been  teachers — I  know  not  what — that 
certain  fundamental  principles  of  scien- 


72 


tific  investigation  are  being  pretty  large- 
ly overlooked  by  many  who  are  writing 
on  these  subjects  of  Biblical  Criticism. 
There  is  a  very  general  tendency  to 
start  with  a  supposition,  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  fact,  an  interpretation  of  a 
passage  of  Scripture,  which  may  be 
plausible  but  may  be  wrong;  and  then 
go  forward  and  reason  upon  that  as 
though  we  had  an  established  fact.  It 
is  to  some  things  of  this  sort  that  I 
wish  to  call  your  especial  attention. 

The  Requirements  of  Inductive  Science 

Now,  the  methods  of  science  are  pure- 
ly those  of  common  sense.  Inductive 
science  is  indeed  nothing  more  than  en- 
larged common  sense.  All  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  actual  world  is  based  on 
observation.  But  it  is  not  confined  to 
observation.  We  obtain  our  knowledge 
of  the  past  by  weighing  evidence.  We 
make  our  plans  for  the  future  by  cal- 
culating the  outcome  of  present  forces 
which  we  know  to  be  in  operation.  By 
reason  of  our  ignorance  of  the  forces  in 
operation,  our  inferences  concerning  the 
past  and  the  future  are  of  every  degree 
of  uncertainty.  To  a  considerable  de- 
gree, thereore,  all  our  knowledge  both 
of  the  past  and  of  the  future  is  specu- 
lative; and  in  science  as  well  as  in  re- 
ligion we  all  walk  by  faith,  and  not  by 
sight. 

But  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  of 
inductive  science  that  it  makes  the  most 
of  the  facts  of  observation.  Modern 
science  differs  from  that  of  the  Middle 
Ages  pretty  largely  in  this  one  thing, 
that  it  keeps  as  clear  as  possible  from 
speculation  which  can  not  be  restramed 
and  guided  by  facts.  So  far  as  it  can, 
it  keeps  in  sight  of  land,  and  only  ven- 
tures out  upon  the  broad  ocean  when 
compelled  to  do  so,  and  then  proceeds 
with  much  misgiving  and  great  caution. 

If  a  man  comes  into  a  scientific  soci- 
ety and  presents  a  theory  without  any 
facts  to  base  it  upon;  if  he  has  not  added 
any  facts  from  his  own  observation,  so 
as  to  enlarge  the  scope  of  our  reason- 
ing, he  is  at  once  turned  down.  He  is 
called  an  a  priori  philosopher. 

So,  this  is  the  scientific  principle  with 


which  we  start;  and  we  shall  see  before 
we  get  through  that  is  a  very  important 
one. 

Mr.  Tyndall  well  nigh  lost  his  repu- 
tation among  scientific  men  when  he 
left  the  solid  facts  of  observation,  and, 
with  his  mind's  eye,  looking  into  the 
abysmal  recesses  of  the  infinite  past,  re- 
ported that  he  saw  Shakespeare  and 
Milton  and  Napoleon  and  Grant  and 
Cuvier  and  Darwin  emerging  by  natu- 
ral processes  from  the  whirling  fiery 
star-dust  out  of  which  the  physicists 
suppose  the  earth  to  have  been  made. 
In  that  he  was  not  speaking  as  a  sci- 
entific man.  He  had  no  more  business 
to  talk  upon  that  than  a  child  ten  years 
old  had.  It  has  been  a  very  humiliat- 
ing thing  to  see  the  respect  that  we 
have  paid  to  such  a  statement  as  that, 
a  statement  which  almost  discredited 
him   with  scientific  men. 

Professor  Huxley,  who  was  a  greater 
man  by  far  than  Tyndall,  damaged  his 
scientific  reputation  when,  in  spite  of 
all  the  facts  which  he  himself  arrayed 
disproving  the  theory  of  spontaneous 
generation,  he  ventured  out  on  the 
wings  of  faith,  and  declared  that  he 
believed  that  somewhere  in  infinite 
time,  and  amid  the  infinite  changes 
through  which  matter  has  been  called 
to  pass,  life  with  all  its  possibilities  did 
somehow  originate  by  a  natural  process 
from  the  material  forces  of  the  uni- 
verse. He  strained  our  confidence  in 
his  scientific  judgment  still  more  when 
he  endeavored  to  prove  that  both  ani- 
mals and  men  are  automata,  doubting 
even  that  animals  had  any  sensation  of 
pain,  and  denying  to  man  a  free  will. 
The  picture  of  Huxley  contending  with 
the  English  bishops,  and  yet  compelled 
by  his  theory  to  maintain  that  he  had 
no  free  will  in  the  matter,  is  in  the  high- 
est degree  ludicrous! 

Herbert  Spencer,  who,  apparently,  has 
so  much  influence  upon  popular  writers 
of  the  present  day,  had  no  standing 
among  the  men  of  science.  He  made 
no  investigations  in  science,  as  Tyndall 
and  Huxley  did.  He  was  simply  an  a 
priori  philosopher  sailing  out  upon  the 
boundless    sea    of    unrestricted    specula- 


72 


tion.  And  so  he  was  looked  upon  by 
all  the  great  scientific  men  of  the  world. 
It  is  philosophy,  not  science,  that  he  is 
teaching. 

In  the  revulsion  from  this  bald  mate- 
rialism of  the  physical  phijosophers, 
many  have  gone  over  to  the  other  ex- 
treme, and  made  so  much  of  the  imma- 
nence of  God  that  they  have  lost  sight 
of  His  transcendence.  These  have  no 
need  of  troubling  themselves  about  the 
origin  of  species,  since,  according  to 
them,  everything  originates  in  the  im- 
mediate action  of  the  Divine  Will. 
These  need  no  historical  evidences  of 
Christianity  and  no  specially  inspired 
authors  of  the  Bible,  since  every  one 
is  inspiredj  and  there  is  no  source  of 
knowledge  but  the  immediate  breathing 
of  the  Almighty  through  the  soul  of 
man. 

But  one  thing  is  very  certain,  and  this 
is  one  to  which  scientific  men  have 
called  attention.  It  is  this,  that  evolu- 
tion however  far  it  may  be  applied  in 
the  material  creation,  does  not  apply  in 
human  history.  When  you  come  to 
man — and  that  is  an  argument  that  un- 
derlies very  much  of  our  reasoning  con- 
cerning the  Bible  and  the  Old  Testa- 
ment— when  you  come  to  man  you  have 
no  theory  of  evolution  such  as  you 
think  you  have  in  nature. 

But  what  are  the  facts  with  which 
Biblical  Science  is  concerned? 

The  facts  are  that  in  Assyria,  in  Baby- 
lonia, in  the  Valley  of  the  Nile,  the  fur- 
ther back  you  go  the  better  was  their 
sculpture.  There  has  been  a  deterio- 
ration. No  man  can  visit  Egypt  and 
not  see  the  evidences  of  this  deterio- 
ration. The  Fellaheen  of  Egypt  are 
descendants  of  the  men  who  built  the 
pyramids.  What  are  they  now?  You 
can  see  to  what  an  extent  they  have 
deteriorated.  So  you  find  in  the  up- 
ward progress  of  the  world  what  we 
believe  is  not  the  result  of  what  you 
call  evolution;  but  it  is,  as  clearly  as 
can  be  the  result  of  historical  processes, 
the  result  of  a  revelation.  We  make 
a  revelation  to  the  heathen,  that  is,  we 
carry  the  revelation  which  we  have  re- 
ceived; and   our   only  hope   and   expec- 


tation for  the  rise  of  the  heathen  na- 
tions is  that  the  truth  which  we  carry 
to  them  will  be  received.  So  as  we  go 
back, — from  whom  did  our  ancestors 
in  Europe  receive  the  truth  that  has 
made  Europe  and  America  what  they 
are?  They  received  it  from  Greece  and 
Rome.  And  Greece  and  Rome  re- 
ceived it  from  Egypt.  And  so,  glanc- 
ing from  one  altar  to  another,  this 
light  has  come  down,  and  we  have  be- 
come the  possessors  of  it.  It  was  not 
by  a  process  of  Natural  Selection. 

The  Church  is  a  Missionary  Church, 
and  the  essential  idea  of  it  is,  that  a 
gift  from  Heaven  has  been  bestowed 
upon  us,  and  woe  to  us  if  we  preach 
not  the  Gospel.  We  are  taken  into 
partnership  with  Christ.  It  is  not  an 
evolution  by  a  natural  and  slow  pro- 
cess; but  it  is  a  revolution  when  the 
Gospel  comes  into  a  heathen's  mind, 
when  the  Gospel  acts  on  the  soul,  when 
it  receives  this  Gospel  of  peace. 

Now,  those  are  the  facts,  and  when 
one  reasons  on  any  other  theory,  he 
reasons  without  his  facts;  and  you  can 
not  bring  that  theory  to  have  any 
weight  with  us  in  the  matter  of  dis- 
cussing such  problems  as  come  before 
us  in  the  Bible.  Whatever  evolution 
may  have  been  in  the  forces  below  us, 
of  earth  and  inanimate  nature,  it  does 
not  apply  in  this  case. 

Now,  this  leads  me  to  the  point  of 
great  difficulty,  and  of  great  import- 
ance, namely,  that  the  main  facts  upon 
which  we  should  form  our  judgment 
concerning  Christianity  are  within  the 
reach  of  ordinary  men:  ninety-nine  one- 
hundredths  of  all  the  evidence  that  bears 
upon  that  subject  can  be  brought  be- 
fore any  man  of  common  intelligence. 
The  fault  I  have  to  find  with  the  pre- 
vailing tendency  is  that  it  disregards 
all  this  main  evidence,  to  concentrate 
attention  upon  getting  a  little  additional 
evidence,  and  then  rests  the  case  wholly 
upon  that. 

We  are  all  of  us,  I  say,  critics.  We 
are  all  out  trying  to  find  the  truth.  We 
do  not  feel  we  have  attained  all  the 
truth,  or  got  all  the  evidence  in.  But 
it  is  like  the  Parable  of  the  Lost  Sheep: 


74 


we  all  want  to  get  the  one  sheep  that 
was  lost  upon  the  mountains.  But,  mark 
you,  it  says  the  other  sheep  were  in  the 
fold.  It  was  not  because  they  cared  so 
much  more  for  the  one  sheep  than  the 
others;  but  the  others  were  safe.  Now, 
the  difference  between  the  Conserva- 
tives and  some  of  the  Radicals  is,  that 
the  Conservatives  feel  that  they  want 
to  keep  the  ninety  and  nine  in  the  fold, 
and  then  go  out  and  see  what  they  can 
do  with  the  other  one;  but  a  great  many 
of  the  Radicals  open  the  gates  and  turn 
the  ninety-nine  out  into  the  wilderness, 
and  then  go  out  and  search  for  the  one. 
That  is  the  process  that  is  going  on. 

I  will  show  you  in  a  few  minutes 
how  it  is  that,  abandoning  the  main  evi- 
dences, they  come  to  rest  their  whole 
case  upon  the  straggling  bits  of  evidence 
that  had  not  all  of  them  come  within 
the  reach  of  our  minds  heretofore. 

The  Bible   and  the   Critics   Tested  by 
Inductive  Science. 

Now,  the  Bible  in  the  fullest  meas- 
ure endures  all  the  tests  of  modern  in- 
ductive science.  It  grants,  yes,  affirms, 
the  existence  of  that  material  substra- 
tum of  nature  which  modern  physical 
science  demands;  while  it  lifts  supreme, 
that  directing  agency  of  an  all-compre- 
hensive Mind,  of  whose  existence  we 
are  assured  in  that  life  of  feeling, 
thought,  and  will  of  which  we  are  most 
immediately    conscious. 

As  a  historical  religion,  Christianity 
places  itself  upon  a  scientific  basis.  The 
doctrines  of  Christianity  are  not  bare 
speculations,  but  they  rest  upon  facts, 
and  are  legitimate  inferences  from  the 
most  permanent  phenomena  in  the 
world's  history.  The  tree  is  known  by 
its  fruits.  The  fruits  of  Christianity 
abound  on  every  hand.  There  is  the 
Church,  with  its  ordinances,  its  insti- 
tutions, its  sacraments,  and  its  varied 
forms  of  life;  there  is  its  line  of  liter- 
ature, continuous  from  the  Apostolic 
time;  and  there  is  its  Sacred  Volume, 
most  marvelous  in  the  variety  of  its 
interest  and  the  sublimity  of  its  con- 
tents. The  Bible  shines  by  no  reflected 
light.     It  is  a  unity  by  itself.     It  is  its 


own  best  witness.  With  the  vast  major- 
ity of  men,  this  remarkable  literature 
constituting  the  Bible  needs  only  to  be 
seen  to  be  recognized  as  a  product  of 
divinity.  In  this,  as  in  every  other  case, 
seeing  is  believing. 

But  we  have  fallen  upon  evil  times, 
when  the  blind  are  trying  to  lead  the 
blind. 

Many  of  the  Biblical  Critics  who  are 
obtaining  a  wide  hearing  are  so  afraid 
of  the  beaten  paths,  and  so  enamored  of 
what  is  new,  that  they  seem  deliberately 
to  choose  the  hardest  road  and  the  most 
obscure  paths  by  which  to  attain  the 
desired  goal  of  truth.  Reversing  the  old 
maxim  that  "whatever  is  true  is  not  new, 
and  what  is  new  is  not  true,"  they  as- 
sume that  nothing  old  is  true,  and  noth- 
ing is  true  which  is  not  new.  Even  so 
conservative  a  critic  as  Herman  L. 
Strack,  in  so  conservative  a  work  as  the 
Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopaedia,  begins  his 
discussion  of  the  authorship  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch by  protesting  against  the  use  of 
the  passages  in  the  New  Testament  in 
proof  of  the  Mosaic  authorship,  on  the 
ground  that  if  they  prove  it,  "all  other 
proofs  are  superfluous  and  are  a  deroga- 
tion from  the  authority  of  our  Lord,  and 
that  the  use  of  such  proofs  removes  the 
whole  question  from  the  historical  and 
critical  domain."  It  is  also  noticeable, 
in  the  most  recent  volume  of  the  late 
Prof.  A.  B.  Davidson,  on  "Old  Testa- 
ment Prophecy,"  that,  when  discussing 
the  authorship  of  the  book  of  Isaiah,  he 
makes  no  use  of  New  Testament  refer- 
ences, except  to  explain  away  two  pas- 
sages from  Paul's  epistles  which  imply 
that  Isaiah  was  the  author  of  the  latter 
part  of  the  prophecy  attributed  to  him. 
Apparently  he  does  not  care  publicly  to 
face  the  question  of  Christ's  indorse- 
ment of  the  Isaianic  authorship  of  the 
whole  book,  since  he  would  be  much 
more  ready  to  attribute  ignorance  or  an 
excessive  use  of  the  principle  of  accom- 
modation to  Paul  than  he  would  to  his 
Lord  and  Master  Jesus  Christ. 

This  tendency  to  eliminate  the  testi- 
mony of  the  New  Testament  to  the  his- 
torical character  of  the  Old  Testament, 
is   in   principle   like   that   of   professedly 


75 


discarding  the  original  and  best  wit- 
nesses in  the  trial,  and  contenting 
oneself  with  the  fragmentary  evidence 
which  can  be  picked  up  from  later  and 
hearsay  witnesses.  Upon  the  impro- 
priety of  this  course  we  have, no  diffi- 
culty in  passing  judgment  in  ordinary 
affairs.  In  legal  matters  we  are  familiar 
with  what  is  known  as  the  "statute  of 
limitations,"  which  provides  that  if  a 
title  is  not  disputed  before  a  certain 
time  has  elapsed,  the  question  shall  not 
again  be  reopened.  The  reason  for  this 
is  that  the  time  to  challenge  the  primary 
witnesses  to  any  fact  is  while  they  are 
still  living  and  accessible.  If  one  delays 
to  adduce  his  rebutting  evidence  until 
the  primary  witnesses  are  dead  or  be- 
yond reach  of  ordinary  effort,  the  pre- 
sumption is  very  strong  that  this  delay 
is  due  to  weakness  in  the  evidence, 
which  would  be  made  manifest  by  the 
explanations  of  the  primary  witnesses. 
While  it  is  not  true  that  the  principles 
underlying  the  statute  of  limitations 
should  have  unrestricted  and  absolute 
sway,  it  is  true  that  it  throws  a  very 
heavy  burden  of  proof  on  those  who 
come  in  with  alleged  new  evidence  long 
after  the  question  has  been  settled,  and 
endeavor  to  reverse  the  original  decision 
based  on  contemporary  evidence.  Pos- 
session is  not  only  nine  points  of  the 
law,  but  is  nine  points  of  the  evidence 
upon  which  we  may  properly  base  our 
belief  concerning  great  historical   facts. 

The  Newtonian  theory  of  gravitation 
is  not  overthrown  by  the  fact  that  there 
are  numerous  anomalies  in  the  move- 
ments of  the  heavenly  bodies  which  we 
are  not  able  to  explain.  With  the  posi- 
tive evidence  supporting  the  theory,  it 
is  sufficient  for  its  advocates  to  show 
that  these  anomalies  are  possibly  capable 
of  being  explained;  thereby  throwing  the 
burden  of  proof  upon  the  objector  who, 
in  order  to  maintain  his  case,  is  com- 
pelled to  prove  a  universal  negative. 

The  main  principles  of  geology  are 
not  proved  false  by  adducing  a  great 
number  of  phenomena  which  are  diffi- 
cult of  explanation.  The  geologist  is 
permitted  to  make  almost  any  number 
of  suppositions  which  do  not  violate  the 


principles  of  physical  science  to  save  a 
well-accredited  theory.  To  account  for 
his  phenomena  he  is  privileged  to  lift 
mountains  and  continents  above  the  sea, 
and  to  invoke  long  eons  of  time  and  the 
action  of  an  endless  variety  of  causes 
which  may  have  combined  to  produce 
the  observed  results.  In  no  other  effort 
of  modern  science  to  reconstruct  the 
past  is  this  more  strikingly  seen  than  in 
Darwin's  advocacy  of  the  origin  of 
species  through  natural  selection,  a 
theory  which  is  well  described  as  a 
series  of  "loopholes"  and  "may-bes"  in 
which  the  difficulties  are  explained  by 
reference  to  such  things  as  "reversion," 
"correlation,"  "use  and  disuse  of  parts," 
"direct  action  of  external  conditions," 
and  "spontaneous"  variation. 

The  believer  in  transmutation  "can  in- 
vent trains  of  ancestors  of  whose  exist- 
ence there  is  no  evidence;  he  can  mar- 
shal hosts  of  equally  imaginary  foes; 
he  can  call  up  continents,  floods,  and  pe- 
culiar atmospheres;  he  can  dry  up 
oceans,  split  islands,  and  parcel  out  eter- 
nity at  will.  Surely,  with  these  advant- 
ages, he  must  be  a  dull  fellow  if  he  can 
not  scheme  some  series  of  animals  and 
circumstances  explaining  our  assumed 
difficulties  quite  naturally." 

Nobody  was  more  willing  to  grant  the 
abundance  and  strength  of  these  objec- 
tions than  was  Mr.  Darwin  himself.  In 
a  striking  letter  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker 
he  makes  this  admission,  but  comforts 
himself  with  the  fact  that  he  is  not  so 
open  to  criticism  on  that  score  as  is 
Herbert  Spencer,  Commenting  upon 
Spencer's  "Principles  of  Biology,"  he 
says: 

"I  have  now  read  the  last  number  of 
H.  Spencer.  I  do  not  know  whether  to 
think  it  better  than  the  previous  num- 
ber, but  it  is  wonderfully  clever,  and  I 
dare  say  mostly  true.  I  feel  rather 
mean  when  I  read  him:  I  could  bear, 
and  rather  enjoy,  feeling  that  he  was 
twice  as  ingenious  and  clever  as  myself, 
but  when  I  feel  that  he  is  about  a  dozen 
times  my  superior,  even  in  the  master 
art  of  wriggling,  I  feel  aggrieved.  If 
he  had  trained  himself  to  observe  more, 
even  if  at  the  expense,  by  the  law  of 
balancement,  of  some  loss  of  thinking 
power,  he  would  have  been  a  wonderful 
man." 


7(> 


Nevertheless,  he  tenaciously  held  on 
to  the  main  proofs  of  his  theory,  con- 
tenting himself  with  the  belief  that  all 
the  objections  might  be  explained  away. 

Without  affirming  or  denying  the  truth 
of  Mr.  Darwin's  theory,  we  can  say 
most  emphatically  that  his  method  is 
scientific.  The  only  question  would  be 
whether  his  main  arguments  are  as  con- 
clusive as  he  supposed. 

It  is  thus,  that,  from  the  beginning, 
the  Christian  Church  has  in  a  truly 
scientific  manner  held  on  to  the  central 
facts  of  Christianity  and  guided  itself 
by  the  clearest  light  which  shines  out 
from  the  Bible.  The  central  fact  from 
which  the  life  of  the  Church  has  sprung 
is  Christ's  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
Around  that  central  fact  is  gathered  a 
mass  of  historical  evidence  which  is  al- 
most superabundant  in  its  amount,  and 
of  such  a  character  as  to  satisfy  the 
most  scrupulous  stickler  for  legal  and 
scientific  evidence.  To  the  legal  mind 
there  is  the  appeal  of  the  report  to 
Pilate  by  the  regular  officers,  whose 
business  it  was  to  carry  out  his  com- 
mand, that  Jesus  was  really  dead.  To 
Professor  Huxley,  who  asked  for  a  post- 
mortem examination,  we  can  reply,  that 
there  was  such  an  examination.  The 
thrusting  of  the  spear  into  the  side  of 
Jesus  fulfilled  every  requirement  of  a 
post-mortem  examination.  Christ's 
emergence  from  the  tomb  was  not  the 
resuscitation  of  a  man  who  had  fallen 
in  a  swoon,  but  was  a  real  resurrection 
from  the  dead. 

The  witness  to  this  resurrection  is  so 
varied,  so  inartificial,  and  so  thoroughly 
wrought  into  the  life  of  the  Primitive 
Church,  that  it  can  not  be  resisted,  ex- 
cept by  doing  violence  to  every  prin- 
ciple of  reason  upon  which  the  ordinary 
affairs   of  life  are  regulated. 

With  the  establishment  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  there  goes,  by  a  simple 
and  easy  process,  the  establishment  of 
the  truth  of  the  whole  New  Testament. 
There  is  such  a  general  congruity  in  the 
story  of  Christ's  supernatural  birth,  His 
brief  period  of  miraculous  activity, 
when,  besides  doing  what  no  man  could 
do,  He  spake  as  no  man  ever  spake, — 


there  is,  I  say,  such  a  congruity  between 
these  recorded  incidents  of  His  life  and 
the  nature  and  work  ascribed  to  Him 
and  the  marvelous  results  effected  by 
Him  in  the  life  of  the  Church,  that  it  is 
impossible,  with  the  facts  clearly  in 
mind,  to  resist  the  conviction  that  the 
New  Testament  is,  in  the  main,  a  gen- 
uinely authentic  account  of  the  life  and 
work  of  our  Lord  and  Master.  The 
New  Testament  embodies  the  whole  cir- 
cle of  facts  out  of  which  sprang  the  life 
of  the  Christian  Church.  In  the  course 
of  a  Providence  before  which  we  can- 
not but  stand  in  awe,  what  we  have  in 
the  Gospels  and  Epistles  was  preserved, 
and  no  more.  Not  a  dozen  sentences 
outside  of  these  books  tell  us  anything 
which  we  can  reasonably  believe  con- 
cerning the  words  and  acts  of  our  Di- 
vine Lord  and  Master. 

Such  a  historical  document  deserves 
at  least  the  respect  which  the  scientific 
man  gives  to  the  central  facts  upon 
which  he  bases  his  theories.  In  ref- 
erence to  the  Bible  we  speak  of  it 
as  the  reverence  due  to  a  highly  quali- 
fied and  well-established  authority.  But 
reverence  has  well  nigh  disappeared 
from  a  considerable  portion  of  our  mod- 
ern Biblical  critics.  Instead  of  asking 
whether  an  interpretation  of  an  obscure 
passage  may  be  explained  in  accordance 
with  the  clearer  passages,  they  ask,  Can 
it  possibly  have  an  interpretation  which 
will  make  it  conflict  with  the  clearer 
passages? 

We  have  an  example  of  this  in  the 
persistent  effort  made  by  a  large  num- 
ber of  prominent  commentators  and 
Biblical  critics  to  make  the  world  believe 
that  there  is  a  plain  contradiction  be- 
tween the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  other 
three  Gospels  in  their  statements  con- 
cerning the  time  at  which  Jesus  ate  the 
last  Passover  with  His  disciples.  Scien- 
tific common  sense  would  say  that  an 
unexplainable  discrepancy  between  such 
documents  should  not  be  assumed  if 
there  was  any  reasonable  way  of  har- 
monizing them. 

The  first  three  Gospels  affirm  with 
great  clearness  that  .  this  Supper  was 
eaten    before    the    arrest    and    trial    ol 


17 


Jesus;  whereas  the  fourth  Gospel  af- 
firms that  early  in  the  morning,  while 
the  trial  was  in  progress,  the  Jews  de- 
clined to  enter  Pilate's  judgment  hall, 
lest  they  should  be  defiled  so  that  they 
could  not  eat  the  Passover.  Now  there 
are  two  very  natural  suppositions  which 
can  be  made,  either  of  which  would  re- 
move this  apparent  discrepancy,  and 
leave  the  credit  of  the  documents  unim- 
paired. 

'  1st.  It  may  have  been,  and  probably 
was,  so  early  in  the  morning  that  the 
priests  could  regularly  eat  the  Passover 
in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word  before 
sunrise. 

2d.  The  phrase  "eat  the  Passover"  be- 
longs to  that  elastic  class  of  expressions 
that  make  it  apply  to  the  concluding 
portions  of  the  festival  that  followed 
during  the  day  up  to  the  next  evening. 

Besides,  it  is  susceptible  of  proof  that 
while  this  defiling  would  have  prevented 
them  from  taking  part  in  the  minor 
closing  festivities,  it  was  not  such  as 
would  have  absolutely  prohibited  them 
from  partaking  of  the  paschal  lamb  upon 
the  evening  following.  From  such  a 
defilement  they  could  easily  free  them- 
selves before  the  close  of  the  day. 

Now  we  submit  that  the  commentators 
and  critics,  who  insist  upon  a  contradic- 
tion in  the  face  of  such  an  easy  recon- 
ciliation, are  ignorant  of  the  simplest 
rules  of  evidence  which  prevail  in  courts 
and  in  all  well-informed  scientific  cir- 
cles. Yet  this  is  only  a  specimen  of  the 
false  reasoning  which  is  being  forced 
upon  the  guileless  public  and  labeled  as 
the  product  of  the  new  science  of  Bib- 
lical criticism.  But  instead  of  being 
new,  it  is  as  old  as  Celsus,  and  the  fal- 
lacy of  the  method  has  been  made  clear 
to  every  generation  until  the  present, 
and  now  we  have  to  go  painfully  over 
the  same  ground  again  and  give  line 
upon  line  and  precept  upon  precept. 

We  have  time  simply  to  enumerate  a 
few  of  the  cases  parallel  to  the  one  al- 
ready mentioned. 

The  author  of  the  third  Gospel  can  be 
shown  by  innumerable  lines  of  evidence 
to  be  a  writer  who  was  exceptionally 
well  informed  upon  all  matters  of  local 


history  and  geography.  In  so  many 
cases  have  his  questionable  statements 
been  confirmed  from  unexpected 
sources,  that,  aside  from  the  question 
of  inspiration,  he  has  come  to  have  the 
reputation  of  a  first-class  witness.  Yet 
so  hard  is  it  for  modern  critics  to  believe 
that  he  has  made  no  mistake,  that  they 
insist  with  inordinate  vigor  in  affirming 
that  in  those  instances  where  the  facts 
depend  wholly  upon  his  statements  he 
not  only  may  be  wrong,  but  he  must 
be  wrong.  One  of  the  most  prominent 
professors  of  New  Testament  Greek 
adduced  as  one  of  his  principal  argu- 
ments for  the  fallibility  of  the  writer, 
that  in  Acts  v.36  Gamaliel  is  made  to 
refer  to  an  impostor  by  the  name  of 
Theudas,  who  had  come  to  grief  some- 
what before  his  time,  during  the  reign 
of  Augustus.  But,  because  Josephus 
mentions  a  Theudas  who  ran  a  similar 
career  fifty  years  later,  in  the  time  of 
Claudius,  it  is  assumed  that  Luke  must 
have  made  a  mistake.  It  would  seem, 
however,  to  be  a  very  plausible  suppo- 
sition that  there  may  have  been  two 
Theudases;  for  such  repetition  of  names 
and  careers  is  by  no  means  unusual. 
Josephus  himself  mentions  four  Simons 
within  forty  years,  and  three  Judases 
within  ten  years,  who  were  all  instigat- 
ors of  rebellion.  To  insist  upon  fas- 
tening an  error  upon  a  credible  witness 
on  so  flimsy  a  basis  as  this  is  certainly 
not  scientific.  Darwin  would  count  him- 
self fortunate  if  he  could  save  his  theory 
by  a  "wriggling"  which  was  ten  times 
more   violent   than   this. 

Similar  remarks  could  be  made  con- 
cerning the  absurd  ideas  attributed  to 
Biblical  writers  by  prominent  commen- 
tators and  critics,  through  imposing 
upon  the  words  of  Scripture  meanings 
which  by  no  means  necessarily  belong 
to  them.  Thus  a  prominent  theological 
professor  accuses  Paul  of  "almost  re- 
senting the  idea"  that  the  Mosaic  leg- 
islation which  prohibited  the  muzzling 
of  an  ox  while  treading  out  the  corn 
"meant  what  it  says;"  and  this  because, 
forsooth,  in  an  impassioned  exhortation 
to  the  early  disciples  properly  to  care 
for    those   who   ministered    to    them    in 


78 


spiritual  things,  he  exclaims,  "Is  it  for 
oxen  that  God  careth,  or  saith  he  it  al- 
together for  our  sake?  Yea,  for  our 
sakes  it  is  written."  This  spectacle  of 
one  who  is  set  up  to  be  a  teacher  of 
the  people  being  so  unable  to  under- 
stand a  rhetorical  expression,  does  not 
augur  well  for  the  intelligence  of  the 
rising  generation  of  ministers.  And  yet 
illustrations  of  the  same  sort  can  be  re- 
peated without  number. 

Turning  for  a  moment  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Old  Testament  which 
is  coming  to  be  prevalent,  we  find  the 
same  unscientific  mode  of  procedure  in 
even  more  aggravated  form.  Not  only, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  is  the  testi- 
mony of  the  New  Testament  to  the  Old 
Testament  ignored,  but  the  chief  wit- 
nesses in  the  New  Testament  are  set 
aside  with  a  flippancy  that  is  as  shock- 
ing to  one's  nerves  as  it  is  discreditable 
to  the  critics.  I  have  heard  a  prominent 
professor  in  an  orthodox  theological 
seminary  affirm  that  Paul  as  an  inter- 
preter of  the  Old  Testament  was  un- 
worthy of  consideration;  that  if  any 
modern  exegete  should  make  such  egreg- 
ious mistakes  in  interpretation  as  Pniil 
made  he  would  be  speedily  recognized 
as  unfit  for  his  position. 

But,  coming  to  facts  nearer  at  hand, 
a  number  of  the  recent  books  written 
by  leading  professors  in  orthodox  theo- 
logical seminaries,  to  reconstruct  and 
reverse  Old  Testament  history,  begin 
their  work  by  wrenching  the  first  verse 
of  the  second  chapter  of  the  book  of 
Genesis  from  its  proper  place,  and  pre- 
fixing it  to  the  first  chapter,  where  it 
does  not  belong.  This  they  do  in  order 
to  defend  their  theory,  rcsving  upon  a 
doubtful  interpretation  of  a  Hebrew 
tense,  that  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
and  second  chapter  contain  contradic- 
tory accounts  of  the  creation.     Coming 


to  the  account  of  the  marriage  between 
the  sons  of  God  and  the  daughters  of 
men,  they  make  it  ridiculous  by  assign- 
ing an  interpretation  to  the  phrase  "sons 
of  God"  which  was  alien  to  Jewish  ideas, 
and  which  has  little  to  support  it,  either 
in  the  nature  of  the  phrase  or  in  the 
nature  of  the  case. 

And  so  on  to  the  end  of  the  chapter, 
the  main  things  are  overlooked,  and  the 
flyspecks  are  magnified,  and  we  are  pre- 
sented with  a  theory  of  the  scheme  of 
salvation  which  runs  counter  to  the 
whole  current  of  revelation  and  of  his- 
tory, and  has  no  support  except  what 
comes  from  an  obsolete,  incorrect,  and 
unphilosophical  theory  of  evolution;  for 
it  is  as  clear  as  day  that,  apart  from  the 
positive  revelation  of  the  Bible,  there 
has  been  no  continuous  upward  stream 
of  tendency  towards  higher  and  better 
things  in  the  experience  of  mankind. 
When  left  to  himself,  man  has  every- 
where been  on  the  down  grade.  The 
world  is  strewn  with  the  wrecks  of  the 
nations  that  forgot  God.  Apart  from 
the  influence  of  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  monotheism  has  never  main- 
tained itself  in  the  world.  The  upward 
tendency  of  mankind  is  due  to  the  ef- 
forts of  a  chosen  people,  who  have  had 
a  mission  from  God  to  the  world.  The 
Church  of  the  present  day  is  walking  in 
the  steps  of  Abraham,  its  great  fore- 
runner. It  hopes  for  the  regeneration  of 
the  world  through  the  blessing  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  upon  the  truth  which  it  pro- 
claims. That  truth  is  not  new  but  old. 
Its  cornerstone  is  Christ.  Christianity 
is  not  the  product  of  the  natural  man, 
but  it  is  a  gift  from  heaven,  committed 
to  our  keeping,  and  woe  be  to  us,  and 
woe  to  the  world,  if  we  preach  not  the 
gospel  in  all  its  fullness  as  a  supernat- 
ural revelation  supported  and  enforced 
by  all  the  powers  of  heaven. 


President  Hall:  The  next  address  will 
be  given  by  Professor  Robert  Dick  Wil- 
son, Ph.D.,  D.D.,  of  Princeton  Theologi- 
cal   Seminary,    whose    attainments    and 


position  entitle  him  to  speak  as  a  rep- 
resentative of  Oriental  Scholarship.  His 
studies  have  specially  fitted  him  to  dis- 
cuss the  theme  he  has  chosen. 


79 


ADDRESS    OF     PROFESSOR     ROBERT     DICK     WILSON 
*<  Groundless  Attacks  in  the  Field  of  Oriental  Scholarship  " 


As  the  time  allotted  to  me  is  limited, 
I  shall  speak  merely  upon  the  ground- 
lessness of  certain  of  the  attacks  made 
upon  the  Scriptures  in  the-  region  of 
palaeography  and  philology. 

But  before  plunging  into  my  subject 
let  me  state  that  in  my  opinion  the  only 
way  in  which  the  conservative  party  can 
maintain  its  position  in  the  field  of 
Biblical  criticism  is  by  showing  that  the 
premises  of  the  radical  critics  are  false; 
by  showing,  through  a  more  thorough 
investigation  of  the  facts,  that  the 
foundations  upon  which  the  magnificent 
structures  of  the  radical  critics  rest  are 
indeed  groundless,  unscientific  and  illog- 
ical, unproven  and  often  incapable  of 
proof. 
The  Attack  in  the  Field  of  Palaeography 

I.  I  remark  that  many  of  the  premises 
of  the  radical  critics  are  fallacious,  be- 
cause of  assumptions  based  upon  an  un- 
justifiable use  of  the  vowel  letters  and 
signs. 

It  is  a  point  admitted  by  writers  of  all 
schools,  that  the  vowel  points  of  the 
Massoretic  text  were  not  fixed  till  some 
centuries  after  Christ.  A  study  of  the 
variants  of  the  Hebrew  MSS.  will  show 
further  that  there  is  scarcely  an  internal 
vowel  letter  that  has  been  invariably 
written  either  fully  or  defectively.  The 
omission  of  all  internal  vowel  letters  (as 
well  as  vowel  signs)  is  shown  conclu- 
sively, also,  on  the  inscriptions  of  the 
ancient  Phenicians,  Aramaeans,  Moabites 
and  Hebrews.  Now,  in  view  of  these 
facts,  what  do  you  think  of  arguments 
like  the  following? 

Wellhausen  says  (on  page  389  of  his 
History  of  Israel),  that 

Za-kar;  "male"  is  in  earlier  times 
Za-kur;  for  this  is  the  writing  of 
Ex.  xxiii.  17;  xxxiv.  23;  Deut.  xvi.  16; 
XX.  13;  and  if  it  is  right  in  these  pas- 
sages, as  we  can  not  doubt  it  is,  it  must 
be  introduced  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  19;  Deut. 
XV.  19;  I  K.  xi.  15,  seq.,  as  well.  In  the 
priestly  code,  Za-khar  occurs  with  great 
frequency  and  elsewhere  only  in  the  later 
literature,  Deut.  iv.  16;  Is.  Ixvi.  7; 
Judges  xxi.  11,  12,  etc." 

You  all  see,  that  if  the  vowels  did  not 

80 


exist  in  the  original  text,  that  the  docu- 
ments of  the  original  text  can  not  be  dis- 
tinguished by  the  vowels  of  that  text. 

2.  The  second  palaeographical  assump- 
tion arises  from  wilful  changes  made  in 
the  consonantal  text. 

By  wilful  changes,  I  mean  those  for 
which  there  is  no  evidence  in  MSS.,  or 
versions,  or  palaeography,  or  the  monu- 
ments. The  worst  sinners  in  this  respect 
are  Professors  Klostermann,  of  Kiel, 
and  Cheyne,  of  Oxford. 

In  his  latest  work,  Biblia  Critica,  just 
coming  out,  Prof.  Cheyne  attempts  to 
reconstruct  the  text  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment on  a  theory  so  incredible,  so  en- 
tirely without  any  foundation  in  facts, 
historical  and  textual,  that  it  seems  to 
me,  to  surpass  all  the  groundless  theories 
that  have  before  been  proposed. 

Did  you  ever  hear  of  the  Jerahmeelites? 
They  are  mentioned  once  in  the  Bible 
and  their  progenitor  Jerahmeel  once  also. 
Now  could  you  believe  it  possible  that 
a  professor  in  Oxford  would  attempt  to 
string  the  whole  text  of  the  Prophets 
and  Histories  of  the  Old  Testament  upon 
the  thread  of  this  word,  which  he  has 
inserted  times  almost  innumerable  in  the 
four  parts  of  his  work  already  published? 
One  can  not  but  wonder,  whether  Pro- 
fessor Cheyne  ever  expected  anybody  to 
accept  as  fact  these  fanciful  reconstruc- 
tions of  his.  I  can  perceive  how  the 
radical  critics  might  in  despair  give  up 
all  attempts  to  reconstruct  the  original 
text  of  the  Scriptures;  but  I  can  not  un- 
derstand why  they  do  not,  one  and  all, 
perceive  that  any  attempt  to  reconstruct 
the  text  out  of  their  own  heads,  is 
doomed  to  failure.  One  Oxford  Profes- 
sor tried  to  reconstruct  the  original  He- 
brew text  of  Ecclesiasticus,  by  re-trans- 
lating it  from  the  Greek  and  Syrian  ver- 
sions. When  the  original  Hebrew  text 
was  found,  his  text  agreed  with  the  orig- 
inal in  only  three  places  out  of  lOo! 

Would  you  like  to  have  a  sample  of 
Professor  Cheyne's  method?  On  page 
135,  he  asserts  that  "corruptions  based 
on    transpositions    are    common;"    and 


hence  he  changes  the  word  tomekh  into 
maakhath.  But  notice:  (i)  That  there 
is  no  MS.  nor  version,  that  supports 
this  change;  and  (2)  that  such  transpo- 
sitions can  not,  comparatively  speaking, 
be  called  common.  For  the  past  fifteen 
years  I  have  been  making  a  collection  of 
such  transpositions  for  which  there  is 
authority  in  the  MSS.,  parallel  passages, 
versions,  or  critical  editions  (including 
large  parts  of  the  Polychrome  Bible), 
and  so  far  my  list  counts  sixty-four  ex- 
amples in  all.  When  you  consider  that 
these  examples  are  collected  from  the 
whole  Bible,  and  that  the  consonant  let- 
ters in  the  Bible  number  about  1,200,000, 
you  will  perceive  that  these  changes 
number  about  one  in  18,000  from  all 
sources  whatsoever.  But  (3),  even  if  the 
instances  of  simple  transposition  were 
much  more  numerous,  what  Professor 
Cheyne  claims  in  the  case  before  us,  is 
not  a  simple  transposition  of  two  let- 
ters; but  the  1st  is  made  the  4th,  the  3rd 
the  1st,  the  4th  the  3rd,  and  the  2nd  is 
changed  from  one  letter  to  another, 
which  it  resembles  in  no  Semitic  alpha- 
bet as  yet  discovered! 

3.  The  third  palaeographical  assump- 
tion arises  from  ignorance  of  the  He- 
brew, or  from  a  misunderstanding  of 
some  version  of  it. 

Some  critics  are  always  on  the  lookout 
for  variants.  When  they  do  not  see  the 
connection  in  meaning  between  the  He- 
brew word  and  its  version,  they  jump  at 
the  conclusion  that  there  has  either  been 
a  change  in  the  original  or  that  the  trans- 
lators  have  misunderstood  their  text. 

An  example  of  what  I  mean  is  to  be 
found  in  i  Sam.  xiii.6,  when  the  Book 
renders  the  Hebrew  word  by  a  word 
meaning  "grave."  Ewald,  the  great  critic 
of  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  asserted 
that  the  Hebrew  word  here  used  did  not 
mean  "grave,"  but  "tower;"  and,  hence, 
many  critics  rejected  the  Hebrew  text, 
because,  they  said,  people  do  not  hide  in 
towers,  and  generally  adopted  the  Greek 
version  as  giving  the  true  meaning. 
Klostermann  proceeds  to  reconstruct  the 
Hebrew  text  by  changing  the  present 
Hebrew  word  to  another  one  which 
means  "sepulchres,"  Now  the  fallacy  here 


lies  in  assuming  a  variation  where  there 
is  none.  The  Greek  is  right  in  having 
the  word  for  "grave."  The  Hebrew  word 
found  in  the  text  also  means  "grave."  If 
you  would  look  in  the  Arabic  dictionary 
you  would  find  the  exact  philological 
equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  used  ordinarily 
in  the  sense  of  "grave."  The  variation  is 
the  figment  of  the  critic's  imagination. 
And  the  persistence  in  claiming  that 
there  is  a  variation  is  one  evidence 
among  many  that  there  is  a  traditional 
interpretation  among  the  radical  as  well 
as  among  the  conservative  critics. 

4.  But  the  most  groundless  of  all  of 
the  assumptions  of  the  radical  critics 
with  regard  to  the  text  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Scriptures  is  that  the  text,  as  it 
emerged  into  historic  times,  had  already 
been  so  changed  from  its  original  form 
as  to  be  utterly  unrecognizable  by  its 
own  composers. 

Yet  what  convincing  evidence  is  there 
to  prove  that  such  radical  changes  were 
ever  made  in  the  original  text  of  the  Old 
Testament?  None  whatsoever,  except 
an  analogy  derived  from  the  Egyptian 
and  Babylonian  liturgies  and  legends. 
No  trace  of  any  such  radical  changes  can 
be  found  in  the  parallel  portions  of  the 
Old  Testament,  nor  in  any  statements 
of  the  Scriptures,  nor  in  any  tradition  of 
the  Jews.  On  the  contrary,  so  far  back 
as  we  can  go  with  MSS.  and  versions 
(i.  e.,  to  200  B.  C.),  the  evidence  is  over- 
whelming and  convincing,  that  in  general 
no  changes,  even  in  sporadic  cases  of 
consonantal  letters,  have  been  made  in 
the  text  of  the  Old  Testament;  except 
such  as  might  occur  in  the  copying  or 
translating  of  any  document,  especially 
one  of  a  long  past  age.  The  Egyptian 
papyri,  recently  discovered  and  pub- 
lished, some  of  tb-'.m  more  than  2,000 
years  old,  show  that  some  of  the  frag- 
ments of  the  Classics  differ  by  not  a  sin- 
gle letter  from  the  texts  of  the  ordinary 
text-books  now  used  in  the  preparatory 
schools.  No  evidence  has  yet  been 
found  in  support  of  a  tendency  theory  on 
the  part  of  either  copyists,  or  translators, 
of  the  Old  Testament,  except,  perhaps, 
in  the  case  of  two  or  three  books  of  the 
LXX.,  and  in  a  few  changes  in  the  Tar- 


81 


gums      Such  tendency  theories  are  an- 
other creature  of  the  critics'  imagination. 
The  only  tendency  theory  that  the  au- 
thors of  the   Old  Testament   Scriptures 
recognize  is  that  which  tends  -from  the 
Paradise    of    the    fall    to    the    Cross    of 
Calvary,  and  from  the  Cross  of  Calvary 
to  the  Paradise  of  the  redeemed. 
The  Attack  in  the  Field  of  PhUology. 
In  the   second  place,   the   groundless- 
ness of  the  radical  attack  may  be  shown 
in  the  field  of  philology. 

I  The  first  of  the  many  false  assump- 
tions are  those  made  as  to  the  meaning, 
the  origin,  and  the  use  of  words. 

Time   forbids  that   I   should   mention 
more  than  one  or  two  examples  of  these 
kinds  of  assumptions.    Their  wide-reach- 
ing  character   can  be   judged,   however, 
from  one  as  well  as  from  many  examples. 
Let    us    take    the    Aramaic    word    for 
King  as  an  example  of  a  false  assump- 
tion based  on  the  meaning  of  a  word. 
Belshazzar,  as  you  know,  is  said  m  the 
Aramaic  portion  of  Daniel  to  have  been 
king  of  Babylon.    Now,  inasmuch  as  the 
monuments  do  not  state  that  Belshazzar 
was   ever  king  in   the   sense  that   Neb- 
uchadnezzar and  Nabonaid  were,  it  has 
been  assumed  that  he  could  have  been 
king  in  no  sense  at  all. 

To    harmonize    the    monuments    with 
Daniel,  it  is  only  necessary  to  remember 
that  the  Aramaic  word  mal-kah,    king, 
is    equivalent   to  two,   or   more,   words 
found  in  the  Assyrio-Babylonian  or  He- 
brew.    In  the  Aramaic,  the  word  mal- 
kah,  "king,"  is  used,  not  merely  of  the 
emperor  of  the  Greeks,  and  of  the  shah- 
in-shah,  the  king  of  kings,  the  kmg  of 
Persia;  but  also  of  the  mayor  of  a  city 
or  of  a  village,  or  of  the  chief  of  a  tribe. 
Belshazzar  may  have  been  king  of  the 
city   of   Babylon,  while  his   father  was 
king  of  the  land. 

The  second  word  which  I  shall  men- 
tion illustrates  the  fallacies  based  upon 
false  assumptions  as  to  the  origm  and 
use  of  words.  I  shall  take  the  ^familiar 
New  Testament  word  korban,  a  gift. 
Wellhausen  asserts  that  this  word  is  a 
late  importation  into  the  Hebrew  from 
the  Aramaic;  that  it  occurs  nowhere  m 
the  Pentateuch,   except   in  the   Priestly 


Code;  and  that  its  presence  there  is  an 
evidence  of  the  late  date  of  that  work 
Now,  inasmuch  as  both  the  root  and 
the  derivative  are  found  in  Arabic  and 
Assyrio-Babylonian,   as   well    as   in   He- 
brew and  Aramaic,  is  it  not  most  prob- 
able that  both  root  and  derivative  were 
used    by    the    primitive    Semites;    and, 
hence,  that  in  their  use  there  is  no  in- 
dication of  derivation,   or  date?     Well- 
hausen, at  least,  gives  no  evidence  except 
his  mere  assertion  that  the  Hebrews  de- 
rived the  word  from  the  Aramaeans.    _ 

2  The  second  philological  assumption 
is  that  the  date  of  books  can  be  deter- 
mined from  the  use  of  sporadic  forms 
and  of  once-written  words,  to  many  ot 
which  the  indefinite  term  "Aramaism 
is  applied.  . 

But  notice,  first,  that  as  to  the  relations 
existing  in  early  times  between  the  He- 
brews  and  the  Aramaean   peoples,   aside 
from   the   statements   of  the   Scriptures, 
we  know  absolutely  nothing.     So  far  as 
Aramaisms  are  concerned,  there  are  no 
conclusive  grounds  for  assertmg  that  a 
book  like   Ecclesiastes  must  have  been 
written    in    the    age    of    the    Maccabees 
rather  than  in  that  of  Solomon.    A  large 
proportion  of  the  words  which  even  con- 
servative  critics   supposed   a  few   years 
ago  to  be  Aramaisms,  can  now  be  shown 
not   to   be   necessarily   such   at    all.     In 
Keil's    "Introduction    to     Ecclesiastes, 
about  half  of  the  most  important  words, 
which  he  classes  as  Aramaisms,  are  found 
in  Arabic  and  Assyrian  as  well.    The  pre- 
sumption is  that  they  are  all  from  primi- 
tive  Semite   roots   and  that  they  might  . 
have  occurred  in   any  book  which  was 
written  at  any  time  in  the  history  of  the 
Hebrews,  or  of  any  other  Semitic  people. 
3.  The    third    philological    assumption 
lies  in  the  contention  that  the  employ- 
ment of  certain  words  rather  than  others 
implies  a  difference  of  author,  or  date, 
rather  than   a   difference   of  idea  to  be 
expressed,  or  a  different  way  of  express- 
ing the  ideas.  . 

This  assumption  lies  at  the  basis  of  the 
divisive  hypothesis  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Without  going  into  a  discussion  of  the 
words  for  God,  about  which  there  is  so 
much  that  is  disputable,  let  us  take  the 


82 


word  "subdue"  [Note  qa-vash]  as  an 
example  of  the  fallacy  that  diction  alone 
is  an  indication  of  a  separate  document, 
or  a  different  author.  This  word  is  said 
to  be  indicative  of  P.  If  this  were  so, 
if  a  characteristic  of  P  lies  in  the  word 
here  used,  we  should  expect  to  find  J 
or  E  using  some  other  word  to  express 
the  idea  "subdue."  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
however,  we  find  no  word  for  "subdue" 
in  either  J  or  E.  J,  to  be  sure,  uses  twice 
a  verb  "to  bow  down."  [Note  ka-ra'], 
which  in  the  causative  means  "to  sub- 
due." A  third  word,  the  causative  of  the 
word  "to  humble"  [Note  ka-na'],  is 
used  once  in  P  and  once  in  D.  The  two 
other  words  used  in  Hebrew  to  denote 
the  idea  of  subduing  [Note  da-var  and 
ra-dad],  do  not  occur  in  the  Pentateuch. 

It  will  thus  be  seen,  that  of  the  five 
Hebrew  words  meaning  "subdue,"  P  em- 
ploys two  (of  which  D  once  uses  one); 
but  J  and  E  never  use  any  one  of  the 
five.  Any  difference,  therefore,  between 
P  and  JE  is  one  of  idea  and  not  of  words 
to  express  the  idea.  Nor  could  anyone 
maintain,  that  either  the  word  or  the 
idea  may  have  been  unknown  to  the 
writers  of  J  or  E.  The  Hebrew  word 
for  "subdue"  found  in  Genesis  I.  is 
found,  also,  in  Assyrio-Babylonian,  Ara- 
maic and  Arabic.  Hence,  it  may  be  as- 
sumed, in  the  absence  of  all  evidence  to 
the  contrary,  to  have  belonged  to  the 
primitive  Semitic  language;  and,  if  it  be- 
longed to  the  primitive  language,  there 
is  no  reason  why  it  may  not  have  been 
used  at  any  time  in  the  history  of  any 
one  of  its  descendants.  That  the  idea 
expressed  by  the  word  "subdue"  may 
have  been  unknown  to  the  authors  of  J 
or  E,  is  a  supposition  which,  in  view  of 
the  endless  subjugations  of  nature  and 
man  revealed  by  the  monuments  and  lan- 
guages of  ancient  nations,  is  too  prepos- 
terous for  sober  discussion. 

In  the  second  place,  a  difference  of 
words,  involved  in  the  same  general  idea, 
does  not  necessarily  imply  a  different 
author,  nor  a  separate  document;  but 
may  rather  imply  a  fine  discrimination 
of  synonyms,  or  a  slightly  different  way 
of  expressing  the  same  idea.  Take,  for 
example,     the     words     for     "likeness," 


"form,"  etc.  P  alone  used  the  words 
"image"  (shadow)  and  "likeness"  [Note 
tse-lem  and  d'mooth];  but  only  in 
Gen.  I.  and  V.  P  and  D  both  use  "pat- 
tern" (form  or  build  [Note  tav-nccth], 
D  and  E  use  the  word  for  "form." 
[Note  t'moo-nah  a  word  of  unknown 
origin  and  doubtful  meaning.]  Now,  if 
a  difference  of  words  to  express  the  same 
general  idea  implies  a  difference  of  au- 
thorship or  document;  we  would  here 
have  three  P's  and  two  D's,  and  tiie  as- 
sumption would  be  that  no  author  can 
ever  use  a  synonym.  But,  if  they  ex- 
press simply  a  different  shade  of  mean- 
ing under  the  same  general  idea,  their 
use  is  no  indication  of  separate  docu- 
ments or  different  authors.  Whichever 
horn  of  the  dilemma  the  critic  takes,  he 
stands  to  fall. 

4.  The  fourth  and  last  philological  as- 
sumption that  I  shall  mention  is  that 
made  by  Frederich  Delitzsch  and  others 
when  they  assert,  without  any  sufficient 
evidence  from  the  vocabulary,  that  the 
Hebrews  derived  their  religious  ideas 
from  the  Babylonians. 

Two  years  ago,  I  made  an  exhau»tive 
comparative  study  of  the  vocabularies  of 
the  four  great  Semitic  languages,  espe- 
cially of  the  words  found  in  Hebrew  and 
Babylonian,  with  the  following  result: 
I  found  that  while  there  were  many 
words  common  to  all  the  Semitic  lan- 
guages; that  these  words  were  most 
common  in  the  lower  spheres  of  life; 
and  that,  as  you  rise  from  the  physical 
and  phenomenal  to  the  mental  and  re- 
ligious spheres,  the  similarities  of  the 
vocabularies  become  less  and  less;  until 
when  you  come  to  the  highest  sphere  of 
all  (the  doctrines  of  God,  sin,  grace, 
pardon,  salvation,  faith,  the  Messiah, 
and  the  kingdom  of  God),  the  vocabular- 
ies have  become  largely  distinct,  and  the 
ideas  in  great  measure  dissimilar. 

To  those  who  would  magnify  the  in- 
fluence of  the  ancient  Babylonian  upon 
the  ideas  of  the  Israelites,  let  me  empha- 
size the  fact,  that  the  stories  of  the 
creation  and  the  flood,  the  belief  in  the 
existence  of  angels,  the  observance  of  a 
Sabbath,  and  the  use  of  sacrifices  and  of 
the  name  Jehovah  (one  or  all  of  which 


83 


are  certainly  found  in  the  monuments 
to  have  prevailed  in  the  age  of  Abra- 
ham), do  not  invalidate  the  Scriptures, 
but  rather  confirm  them.  The  remarkable 
thing  is,  that  we  find  such  close  resem- 
blances of  names  and  institutions  in  Gen- 
esis and  so  few  in  Exodus  and  Leviticus. 
While  on  this  part  of  my  subject  and 
in  conclusion,  I  can  not  refrain  from  call- 
ing the  attention  of  this  audience  to  the 
long  line  of  opposition  between  the  re- 
ligions and  the  policy  of  the  Hebrews  and 
Babylonians,  which  extends  from  the  time 
when  Abraham  was  called  out  of  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees  to  leave  his  country  and  his 
kindred,  until,»in  the  Apocalypse  and  the 
later  Jewish  literature,  Babylon  became 
the  height  and  front  of  the  offending 
against  the  kingdom  of  the  God  of  Israel. 
All  through  that  extended  and  extensive 
literature  of  the  ancient  Hebrews,  all 
through  those  long  annals  of  the  Assy- 
rians and  Babylonians,  wherever  the  He- 
brews and  the  Assyrio-Babylonians  were 
brought  into  contact,  it  was  by  way  of 
opposition.  The  only  exceptions  were  in 
the  cases  of  some  weakling,  Jehovah-dis- 
trusting kings.  But  with  these  excep- 
tions, prophets  and  kings  and  poets  em- 


phasize and  reiterate  the  antagonism,  es- 
sential and  eternal,  existing  between  the 
worship  of  Jehovah  and  the  worship  of 
the  idols  of  Babylon.  And  when  the 
children  of  Israel  had  been  carried  away 
to  the  rich  plains  of  Babylon,  so  beauti- 
ful, so  vast,  was  it  as  a  Greek  patriot  to 
the  Athens  of  his  dreams,  or  a  Scotsman 
to  his  "ain  countrie?"  Not  thus.  But 
they  wept  when  they  remembered  Zion: 
"How  shall  we  sing  the  Lord's  songs  in 
a  strange  land?"  Not  thus  does  the 
Catholic  pilgrim  sing  when  he  treads  the 
streets  of  papal  Rome  and  stands  in  awe 
beneath  the  dome  of  St.  Peter's.  Not 
thus  does  the  Arab  Hadji  pray  when  he 
bows  within  the  sacred  precincts  of  the 
Kaaba.  But  thus  has  every  Jew  through- 
out the  ages  felt,  the  record  of  whose 
thoughts  and  feelings  has  been  pre- 
served to  us;  and  thus  does  every  child 
of  Abraham  according  to  the  promise 
feel — that  not  to  Babylon,  the  golden 
city,  the  mother  of  science  and  art  and 
commerce,  and  of  idolatry  and  harlotries 
and  sorceries,  do  we  look  for  the  springs 
of  our  religion  and  the  hope  of  our  sal- 
vation,— but  to  Jerusalem  the  Golden, 
the  City  of  the  Great  King. 


President  Hall :  We  shall  now  have  the 
privilege  of  listening  to  the  Rev.  M.  G. 
Kyle,  D.D.,  Frankford,  Philadelphia.    By 


reason  of  his  original  investigations  in  his 
department  Dr.  Kyle  is  entitled  to  speak  as 
a  representative  of  Arch2eology. 


ADDRESS  OF  REV.  DR.  M.  G.  KYLE 


"  Unscientific  Handling  of 

I  have  been  introduced  to  you  as  an- 
other of  those  dreadful  specialists.  I 
want  you  to  note  that  they  are  not  all 
on  the  wrong  side,  not  by  a  great  deal. 
You  will  have  to  allow  us  one  privilege, 
however,  if  we  are  to  be  specialists,  the 
privilege  of  being  somewhat  microscopi- 
cal in  method. 

One  of  the  fundamental  errors  of  the 
prevailing  criticism  is  the  illogical 
handling  of  facts.  The  so-called  "mod- 
ern view"  fools  itself  with  facts  and  then 
tries  to  fool  the  people.  We  must  credit 
scholarly  and  seemingly  candid  men 
with  real  candor,  and  so,  I  say,  they  fool 
themselves  first  and  then  fool  the  peo- 


the  Facts  of    Archaeology" 

pie.  Now,  the  Archaeologist  is  a  man  of 
facts.  I  see  that  a  few  of  you  look  a 
little  incredulous  at  that,  and  it  must  be 
confessed  that  Archaeologists  do  some- 
times theorize  prodigiously.  Neverthe- 
less, the  Archaeologist's  material  in  hand 
is  facts,  things  that  other  people  have 
done  a  long  time  ago  and  that  have  been 
kept  in  hand  or  have  been  dug  up  in 
these  later  days.  We  deal  with  facts. 
However  much  we  may  theorize  upon 
them,  the  material  is  facts. 

I  wish  to  point  out  to  you  very  briefly 
some  of  the  fallacies  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  day  in  the  handling  of 
these  facts  of  Archaeology.    I  am  not  to 


84 


make  an  address,  but  simply  to  make 
points  that  others  may  elaborate  at  their 
leisure.  I  have  promised  myself  to 
make  five  points  in  ten  minutes,  if  that 
clock  does  not  go  too  fast. 

Fallacy  First:  Depending  upon  au- 
thority instead  of  upon  evidence. 

Here  I  hasten  to  guard  against  misun- 
derstanding. I  would  not  have  any- 
body suppose  that  I  seriously  charge  the 
Higher  Critics  of  the  day  with  depend- 
ing too  much  upon  the  authority  of 
Moses  or  Joshua,  or  David  or  Isaiah, 
but  upon  the  authority  of  one  of  the 
modern  scholars  without  presenting,  or, 
must  I  say  it?  even  examining  the  evi- 
dence upon  which  that  scholar's  opinion 
rests.  A  single  example  will  suffice  to 
illustrate  the  point.  In  that  rhetorically 
charming  book,  "Modern  Criticism  and 
the  Preaching  of  the  Old  Testament," 
by  a  distinguished  Scottish  Professor 
who  has  done  more  than  any  other  to 
entwine  the  garlands  of  rhetoric  about 
the  cold  hardness  of  the  shaft  the 
Critics  would  raise  over  the  tomb  of  di- 
vine revelation,  the  gifted  author  pays 
his  respects  to  the  work  of  the  Arch- 
aeologists of  a  century  in  a  brief  portion 
of  a  single  chapter.  He  finds  almost 
nothing  that  has  any  bearing  upon  Bibli- 
cal questions,  and  that  little  to  favor  the 
advanced  critics.  You  will  remember 
that  he  singles  out  the  Egyptian  name 
of  Joseph  as  about  the  only  thing  really 
worthy  of  notice,  and  settles  the  whole 
matter  not  by  evidence  but  by  authority. 

The  statement  stands  at  the  end  of 
a  long  attenuated  line  of  quotations. 
He  quotes  confessedly  from  Profes- 
sor Driver,  in  the  Hastings  Bible  Dic- 
tionary (which  is  but  a  brief  presenta- 
tion of  the  same  author's  views  in  his 
essay  in  "Authority  and  Archaeology"); 
who  in  turn  rests  his  opinion  upon  the 
declaration  of  Ebers,  Brugsch  and  Stein- 
dorff.  The  opinion  of  Ebers  he  quotes 
from  the  Bible  Dictionary,  that  of 
Brugsch  from  his  "Steinenschrift,"  and 
the  work  of  both  belongs  to  the  past. 
Both  these  men  passed  from  the  sphere 
of  opinions  into  the  world  of  knowledge 
some  time  ago.  As  no  communication 
has  been  received  from  them  since,  even 


a  critic  may  not  assume  that  this  is  what 
they  believe  now,  or  what  they  v/ould 
have  believed  had  they  lived  and  labored 
on  through  the  period  of  recent  produc- 
tive research  which  has  set  so  many 
things  of  Ancient  Egypt  in  a  new  light. 
Thus  the  authority  of  these  scholars  is 
removed  from  the  argument. 

The  remaining  authority,  the  distin- 
guished Egyptologist  of  Leipsic,  appro- 
priates, as  the  basis  of  his  opinion  the 
work  of  M.  Krall.  Upon  this  authority 
is  based  the  assertion  that  Egyptian 
names  such  as  that  given  to  Joseph  had 
no  existence  until  about  the  ninth  cen- 
tury  B.  C,  a  thousand  years  after  the 
time  of  Joseph,  if  he  be  entirely  his- 
torical. A  little  patient  investigation  of 
the  evidence  discovers  that  the  identifi- 
cation of  Joseph's  Egyptian  name  by  M. 
Krall  is  weighted  down  with  all  but  im- 
possible phonetic  difficulties;  whereas 
there  are  known  four  names  of  kings  of 
the  fourteenth  dynasty  before  the  tradi- 
tional time  of  Joseph,  which  supply  an 
exact  Egyptian  equivalent  for  Joseph's 
name,  letter  for  letter,  with  the  mean- 
ing, "the  one  who  supplies  the  nourish- 
ment of  life."  The  evidence  has  been 
ignored  for  the  authority  of  a  great 
name. 

Fallacy  Second:  Deduction  without 
comparison  or  without  sufficient  induc- 
tion. 

This  fallacy  finds  its  most  patent,  per- 
haps its  most  fiagrant,  use,  or  abuse,  in 
the  classification  of  the  words  peculiar 
to  various  ages  or  various  authors  of  the 
same  age,  upon  which,  from  Astruc 
down,  the  literary  analysis  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch has  depended,  and  which  has 
been  so  much  used  in  the  further  exten- 
sion of  the  literary  analysis  to  all  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  it  is 
a  fundamental  law  of  logic  that  there 
can  be  no  deduction  without  compari- 
son, no  conclusion  from  one  premise,  no 
list  of  words  peculiar  to  any  age,  if  there 
is  no  book  in  that  language  from  any 
other  age,  or  list  of  words  peculiar  to 
one  author  of  any  age  if  there  is  no 
known  book  of  any  other  author  of  that 
age.  This  method  as  applied  to  the 
Bible  could  hold  good  only  if  there  was 


8S 


an    extensive    Hebrew    literature    from 
centuries  from  which  there  is  absolutely 
nothing  but  the  Bible;  and  as  applied  to 
many  authors  could  hold  good  only  if 
there  were  several  others  for  compari- 
son, where,  in  fact,  there  is  none  at  all. 
The  only  way  it  has  been  possible  to  use 
this  method  with  the  Old  Testament  is 
to  assume  that  it  was  written  at  a  much 
later  date  and  thus  bring  it  into  com- 
parison with   the   extensive  Hebrew  lit- 
erature of   Exilic  and  Post-exilic  times; 
but  this  is  to  beg  the  question  at  issue. 
But  the  fallacy  of  deduction  without 
sufficient  induction  is  by  no  means  con- 
fined to  this  classification  of  words.     It 
is  applied  also  to  the  other  materials  of 
Archseology.     A  most   familiar  illustra- 
tion is  the  usual  interpretation  given  by 
the  Higher  Critics  to  the  Israel  tablet 
found    by    Professor    Petrie    in    Egypt. 
They  assert  that  at  the  time  of  the  in- 
scription Israel  was  already  in  Palestme, 
and    that    the    destruction    of    Isiaels 
"seed"  means  not  the  destruction  of  the 
male  children  but  the  destruction  of  the 
"crops."     This   all   seems   in   a   general 
way  out  of  harmony  with  the  Bible  ac- 
count  but    quite   in   harmony  with   the 
current  development  theorv   of  Israel's 
history.     But  it  is  a  case  of  insuflicient 
induction. 

It  rests  first  upon  the  opinion,  spe- 
cially supported  in  this  country  by  the 
distinguished  Egyptologist  of  Chicago 
University,  that  "seed"  in  Egyptian 
never  means  children,  as  it  does  m  so 
many  other  languages.  Yet  in  Hatasu  s 
great  wall  inscription  at  Deir  el  Ba- 
hari,  the  god  Amon  is  represented  as 
addressing  the  Queen  by  the  same  word, 
and  clearly  meaning,  "Issue,  my  holy 
Issue."  Imagine  a  father  addressing  his 
daughter  as  "Crops,  my  holy  Crops!" 

This  opinion  of  the  Israel  tablet  rests, 
in  the  second  place,  upon  the  assertion 
that  all  the  other  peoples  mentioned 
were  in  Palestine,  that  Israel  seems  to 
be  associated  with  Khar,  and  that  Khar 
was  a  name  for  Palestine.  So  it  was, 
but  it  was  a  name  of  Palestine  by  way 
of  the  great  valley  that  runs  from  the 
Jordan  down  through  Arabia  to  the  Red 
Sea   the  very  desert  of  the  wanderings. 

86 


In  the  third  place,  this  opinion  over- 
looks   altogether   the   fact   that,    of  the 
eight     peoples     named,     Israel     is     the 
seventh.    All  that  precedes  and  the  one 
that  follows  have  in  the   Egyptian  two 
determinatives,   meaning    "Foreign   peo- 
ple" and  "own  country;"  while  the  name 
Israel  has   only  one  determinative,  that 
for  a  "Foreign  People."     That  denoting 
an  "own  country"  is  omitted.     If  Israel 
were  the  last  name,  we  might  think  the 
scribe  had  carelessly  omitted  the  second 
determinative,  but  since  "Khar"  follows 
with  both  determinatives,  it  is  about  as 
near  to  a  demonstration  as  anything  in 
epigraphy    can   be,   that    the    scribe    in- 
tended   to    omit    the    determinative   for 
"own  country"  after  "Israel." 

Thus  the  inscription,  when  all  the 
facts  are  gathered,  is  in  entire  accord 
with  the  Biblical  narrative.  It  may  mean 
the  destruction  of  the  male  children. 
Israel  seems  to  be  put  just  where  the 
Bible  puts  the  wandering  nation,  and 
it  is  clearly  indicated  that  she^^was  a 
people  without  an  "own  country,"  a  set- 
tled abode  of  her  own,  either  still  in 
Egypt  or,  more  probably,  in  the  wilder- 
ness of  the  wanderings. 

So  far  is  this  fallacy  of  deduction 
without  sufficient  induction  carried  in 
the  use  of  Archseological  facts,  that 
nearly  every  great  inscription  discovered 
that  has  a  bearing  on  the  Bible  is 
claimed  by  the  critics  as  against  the 
Bible's  historicity,  until  careful  investi- 
gators have  had  time  to  collate  all  the 
evidence. 

Fallacy  Third:  Disregard  of  the  evi- 
dential value  of  the  complete  harmony 
between  Archseological  finds  and  Bibli- 
cal records  purporting  to  be  from  the 
same  time  and  place. 

As  long  as  a  discovery  can  be  made  to 
appear  as  against  the  Bible,  it  is  con- 
sidered very  important  by  the  critics 
But  just  as  soon  as  all  the  evidence  is 
adduced,  and  it  is  shown  to  be  in  har- 
mony with  the  Bible  account,  it  is  dis- 
carded and  classed  with  nearly  all  that 
has  gone  before  as  of  little  or  no  evi- 
dential value. 

Now  it  is  admitted  that  any  one  thing 
that    merely    does    not    contradict    the 


Bible  is  not  of  so  great  evidential  value 
as  one  thing  that  did  contradict  the 
Bible,  if  such  should  be  discovered.  But 
that  is  not  at  all  the  state  of  the  Arch- 
aeological argument  for  the  Bible.  Let 
me  illustrate.  You  and  I  have  a  very 
dear  old  friend  who  has  told  us  much 
of  his  childhood,  of  the  place  of  his 
birth,  the  people  among  whom  he  lived, 
the  customs  of  the  people,  and  many 
events  of  their  history,  together  with  the 
topography  of  the  country  and  the 
names  and  character  and  conduct  of  the 
neighbors  round  about.  But  some  per- 
sons have  aspersed  his  reputation,  have 
said  that  while  our  old  friend  imparted 
to  us  some  lessons  of  great  moral 
value,  he  romanced  a  great  deal 
about  the  facts  of  his  life  history. 
Then  we  have  gone  to  investigate.  We 
have  visited  the  community  he  has 
named,  have  inquired  among  the  old 
neighbors,  have  looked  into  the  history 
and  examined  the  remains  of  the  times 
he  indicated,  and  have  found  many 
things  to  confirm  his  statements,  and  not 
a  single  thing  inconsistent  with  his 
story,  and  we  have  come  back  with  con- 
fidence fully  established  in  his  veracity, 
under  the  conviction  that  it  is  a  moral 
impossibility  to  believe  that  he  could  lie 
so  much  and  never  get  caught  at  it. 

This  Book  [pointing  to  the  Bible]  is 
your  friend  and  mine,  and  very  dear. 
It  has  told  us  much  of  the  times  and 
the  lands  and  the  peoples  and  the 
events  from  which  it  comes.  But  the 
prevailing  Higher  Criticism  has  aspersed 
its  reputation,  has  challenged  in  large 
part  its  historicity.  We  are  told  that  it 
inculcates  moral  lessons  of  great 
value,  but  romances  much  upon  the 
facts.  Then  the  Archaeologists  have 
gone  to  see.  We  have  visited  the  old 
communities,  have  enquired  among  the 
old  neighbors,  have  read  in  the  old 
chronicles,  have  seen  depicted  the  old 
customs,  have  searched  the  ruins  of  pub- 
lic works  long  buried,  have  even  gone  to 
the  cemeteries  and  read  the  old  names 
on  the  tombstones.  We  have  found 
many  things  explicitly  confirming  our 
dear  friend's  story,  and  nothing  what- 
ever inconsistent  with  it,  not  one  estab- 


lished fact  of  Archaeology  has  contra- 
dicted the  Bible.  Our  confidence  in  our 
old  friend  is  made  stronger  than  ever 
before,  because  it  is  morally  impossible 
to  believe  that  under  the  searchlight  of 
present-day  Archaeological  investigation 
the  Bible  could  deceive  us  so  often  and 
never  get  caught  at  it. 

That  is  the  Archaeological  argument 
for  the  historicity  of  the  Bible,  and  it 
exposes  the  fallacy  of  the  critics  in  dis- 
regarding the  value  of  general  harmony. 

Fallacy  Fourth:  Disparagement  of 
the  Bible  as  Archaeological  material,  a 
part  of  the  records  of  the  past. 

Putting  aside  for  a  moment  all  ques- 
tion of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  and 
of  its  character  as  a  divine  revelation, 
let  us  look  at  it  merely  as  a  part  of  the 
literary  remains  of  Bible  lands.  The 
peoples  of  Bible  lands  left  immense  lit- 
erary treasures.  By  far  the  largest  por- 
tion of  them  have  been  lost,  alas!  per- 
haps forever.  Some  parts  have  never 
been  lost.  These  sixty-six  books  of  the 
Bible  have  never  been  wholly  lost,  to- 
gether with  a  vast  Rabbinical  literature 
from  Exilic  and  post-Exilic  times  and 
some  Greek  remains  of  the  beginning  of 
the  Christian  era, — but  most  notably 
these  sixty-six  books  which  we  call 
Scriptures.  Some  that  was  lost  was 
recovered  a  long  time  ago,  especially 
the  writings  of  certain  Greek  travel- 
lers, as  Herodotus,  Strabo,  Xenophon, 
not  to  mention  others;  and  these  are 
usually  called  classics.  Still  other  por- 
tions of  the  literary  remains  of  Bible 
lands,  some  on  papyrus,  some  on  parch- 
ment, some  on  tablets  of  clay  or  of 
stone,  have  been  recovered  from  oblivion 
in  quite  recent  times.  These  are  spe- 
cifically denominated  Archaeological 
finds.  Now,  all  of  these,  whether  Scrip- 
tures, or  Classics  or  Archaeological 
finds,  are  monuments  of  antiquity,  liter- 
ary remains  of  Bible  lands.  But  the  self- 
styled  champions  of  the  literary  method 
disparage  the  Bible  among  these  liter- 
ary remains  of  Bible  lands.  They  insist 
upon  testing  the  Bible  by  all  the  rest. 
They  put  the  Bible  in  the  prisoner's 
dock,  deny  it  a  prisoner's  right  before 
conviction  to  be  heard  on  the  witness- 


87 


stand  without  undue  prejudice.  And 
they  call  against  it  all  the  other  remain- 
ing witnesses,  and,  if  Eddin-sin  or 
Muballet-sin  or  any  other  old  heathen 
Babylonian  or  Egyptian  "Sin-ner"  can  be 
found  to  say  a  word  that  seems  to  be  in- 
consistent with  the  statements  of  Moses 
or  Joshua,  or  any  other  Biblical  author, 
forthwith  they  announce  that  the  Bible 
has  been  discredited.  In  the  name  of  the 
Bill  of  Rights,  I  protest  against  such  un- 
equal treatment  of  witnesses.  The  Bible 
is  not  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  As 
Archaeological  material,  the  Bible  is  no 
more  on  trial  than  any  other  witness  of 
antiquity;  and  it  is  not  to  be  disparaged, 
to  be  made  unequal,  in  the  comparison. 
I  might  go  on  pointing  out  fallacies 
and  giving  illustrations  until  it  would  be 
time  for  the  historic  rooster  on  the  top 
of  this  Church  building  to  announce  the 
morning.  I  will  only  name  one  more 
point,  and  this  one  is  not  against  the 
critics.  The  greatest  danger  from  the 
prevailing  Higher  Criticism  is  not  with 
the  critics  but  with  the  dear  people  that 
have  been  utterly  indiflferent.  Thank 
God,  they  are  waking  up,  but  they  have 


President  Hall:  Owing  to  the  late- 
ness of  the  hour.  Dr.  Mackenzie  will  ad- 
dress us  to-morrow  morning,  when  he 
will  give  us  one  of  the  most  interesting 
addresses  of  the  Convention. 

The  General  Topic  for  the  session  to- 
morrow morning  is,  "Method  proposed 
by  the  League  for  Remedying  the 
Evils."  There  will  be  addresses  by  Dr. 
Gregory,  General  Secretary,  and  other 
members  of  the  Education  Committee 
and  of  the  League  on  the  First  Special 
Topic,  "Concentration  of  Popular  At- 
tention Upon  the  Best  Way  of  Master- 
ing the  Bible  and  What  is  in  It." 

On  the  Second  Special  Topic,  "Co- 
operation with  Existing  Agencies  in  In- 
teresting the  Young  in  Systematic  and 
Constructive  Bible  Study,"  addresses 
are  expected  from  Rev.  Wayland  Hoyt, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  Philadelphia,  a  leader  in 
Christian  Endeavor  work;  Rev.  Charles 
L.  Fry,  of  St.  Luke's  Church,  Philadel- 
phia, Literary  Secretary  of  the  Luther 


been  indiflferent  and  in  that  indiflference 
lies  the  great  danger.  Tuberculosis  is 
not  essentially  a  very  dangerous  disease, 
because  it  is  easily  preventable;  the  dan- 
ger lies  in  the  amazing  indiflference  of 
the  people.  The  prevailing  Higher 
Criticism  is  the  tuberculosis  of  faith.  It 
is  not  a  very  dangerous  disease  in  itself, 
because  its  evil  effects  are  easily  pre- 
ventable; the  danger  lies  in  the  utter  in- 
diflference of  the  Church  hitherto.  The 
Bible-loving  people  have  gone  on  ignor- 
ing it,  very  much  in  the  mental  attitude 
of  the  man  who  was  being  examined  by 
the  civil  service  commissioners.  They 
asked  how  far  the  moon  is  from  the 
earth.  Well,  he  did  not  know.  So  he 
wrote:  "I  do  not  know  how  far  the  moon 
is  from  the  earth,  but  I  feel  very  sure 
that  it  is  not  near  enough  to  interfere 
with  my  mail  route."  So  the  people 
have  had  the  idea  that  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism was  something  away  up  in  the  air, 
well  out  of  the  way  of  their  mail  route. 
But  it  does  afifect  their  mail  route,  the 
only  road  by  which  any  message  has 
ever  come  to  us  from  God.  Let  us 
wake  up! 


League  of  America;  Mr.  Willis  E. 
Lougee,  Secretary  of  the  Business  De- 
partment of  the  International  Committee 
of  the  Y.  M,  C.  A.;  Rev.  James  A.  Wor- 
den,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  Philadelphia,  Su- 
perintendent of  the  Sabbath  School  and 
Missionary  Work  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  others. 

I  think  we  have  also  one  or  more  rare 
treats  in  store,  of  which  announcement 
has  not  yet  been  made,  and  we  do  not 
propose  to  make  that  announcement  un- 
til to-morrow  morning. 

We  will  now  join  in  singing  the  clos- 
ing hymn,  and  after  the  Benediction,  we 
shall  go  to  our  homes  with  a  prayer  on 
our  lips  and  in  our  hearts  that  our 
Heavenly  Father  will  most  graciously 
bless  the  labors  of  His  servants  this 
day. 

Dr.  Burrell:  Hymn  No.  79. 
"Come,   pure  hearts,  in  sweetest  meas- 
ures." 

Benediction. 


88 


THURSDAY     MORNING     SESSION,     MAY    3 

10:00  A.  M.     President  William  Phillips  Hall  in  the  Ch«ir 
OPENING    DEVOTIONAL     EXERCISES 


Dr.  Burrell:  Let  us  sing  the  old 
Hymn,  No.  370,  Prayer  for  light: 

"Come,  O  Creator,  Spirit  blest!" 

Dr.  Burrell:  Psalm  cxix.  We  will 
read  the  two  divisions,  Mem  and  Nun, 
beginning  with  verse  97. 

Prayer  by  Dr.   Burrell: 

O  God,  that  dwellest  in  light  and 
glory  unapproachable,  everything  is 
clear  before  Thee;  but  we,  Thine  own 
sons  and  daughters,  down  here  among 
the  mists  and  shadows,  among  doubts 
and  misgivings,  ifs  and  perhapses  and 
peradventures,  groping  our  way  like 
blind  people  along  the  wall,  dost  Thou 
not  see  and  pity  us,  our  Father? 

Aye,  verily.  Thou  hast  given  us  light. 
We  thank  Thee  for  the  light  shining  in 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  Thy 
Word  unto  us.  We  thank  Thee  for  the 
light  shining  upon  the  pages  of  the  writ- 
ten Word,  showing  us  the  face  of  Jesus 
Christ.  We  rejoice  in  this  written  Word 
of  Thine.  Thou  hast  done  everything  to 
make  our  way  clear.  Save  us  from  our- 
selves, now;  save  us  from  our  own  wis- 
dom, from  getting  into  our  own  light, 
from  stumbling  over  our  own  feet,  from 
going  before  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  try- 
ing to  have  our  own  way.  Thou  art 
wiser  than  we  are,  infinitely.  Oh,  we 
are  glad  to  have  a  Father  so  much  great- 
er than  His  children,  so  much  wiser; 
and  our  hands  are  in  Thine.  If  they  are 
not  in  Thine,  oh,  Lord  God,  we  want  to 
put  them  there  now,  here  and  now,  to 
be  guided  by  Thee. 

Father  above,  give  us  light  for  the 
next  hour;  and  after  that  we  ask  Thee 
for  another  hour  of  light,  and  so  on  until 
the  day-break  and  the  shadows  flee 
away.  Meanwhile  we  trust  in  Thy  word; 
it  is  a  lamp  unto  our  feet.  Thy  prom- 
ises. Thy  precepts,  we  love  them;  sweet- 
i  er  than  honey  they  are  to  us.  Blessed  be 
'>>      Thy  name,  in  Jesus  Christ.     Amen! 

Dr.  Burrell:  Now,  let  us  sing  again, 
No.  82: 

"A  glory  gilds  the  sacred  page 
Majestic  like  the  sun." 


President  Hall:  In  opening  this  con- 
cluding session  of  the  first  Convention 
of  The  American  Bible  League,  I  would 
announce  that  this  Convention  is  but 
preliminary  to  a  much  more  comprehen- 
sive one  to  be  held  in  the  near  future, 
in  which  we  shall  be  able  to  treat  the 
vital  Biblical  issues  in  much  greater  de- 
tail than  has  been  possible  in  the  meet- 
ings that  conclude  with  this  morning's 
session.  While  I  am  not  prepared  at 
the  moment  to  announce  definitely  when 
the  next  convention  will  be  held  in  New 
York  City,  I  may  say  that  in  all  prob- 
ability such  a  convention  will  be  held 
some  time  next  fall  or  winter.  We  shall 
aim,  by  preparation  most  thorough  and 
by  notice  most  general,  to  insure  not 
only  a  convention  of  the  very  highest 
merit  in  every  respect — even  as  this  has 
been — but  also  one  that  shall  be  very 
much  more  comprehensive — including 
many  more  speakers  and  covering  a 
wider  range  of  the  great  subject  in 
which  we  are  interested. 

I  would  also  state  that  we  have  al- 
ready received  a  request  from  friends  in 
Chicago  to  hold  a  convention  somewhat 
similar  to  this  in  that  city  next  month. 
I  think  that  will  be  out  of  the  question. 
We  have  also  been  invited  to  St.  Louis; 
and  friends  in  Boston  have  suggested 
that  a  convention  be  held  there;  and 
from  other  places  word  has  been  re- 
ceived that  a  convention  of  the  charac- 
ter of  this  one  would  be  welcome.  All 
this  indicates  the  widespread  interest 
that  is  felt  in  this  work,  as  was  evi- 
denced by  the  letter  read  from  Principal 
Sheraton,  of  Wyckliflfe  College,  To- 
ronto. We  have  already  heard  from 
many  places  in  the  Motherland  across  the 
sea,  as  well  as  from  other  points  in  the 
Christian  world.  The  movement  al- 
ready inaugurated  is  broadening,  deep- 
ening and  intensifying  in  its  sweep,  and 
it  is  becoming  evident  that  within  a  very 
short  time,  we  trust  within  the  present 
year,  The  American  Bible  League  will 
have    no    less    a    membership    than    ten 


89 


thousand  in  the  United  States  and 
Canada  We  think  there  is  every  reason 
to  anticipate  that  this   increase  will  be 

realized.  .  .   ^  ^u     „„ 

I  stated  last  evening,  in  giving  the  an- 
nouncements    of     this     morning's     pro- 
gram, that  we  had  some   pleasant  sur- 
prises to  present  at  this  time.     It  gives 
me   very   special    pleasure   therefore,   in 
line  with  this  statement,  to  introduce  a 
very  dear  friend  personally  and  a  very 
dear  friend   of  the  Bible  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  comes  from  the  city 
of  Providence  with  a  message  of  pecul- 
iar interest  at  this  time.    It  is  a  message 
that    is    not   announced   upon  the   pro- 


gram,  because  it  has   come  to  our  no- 
tice   since    the    program    was    printed; 
but  it  has  reference  to  one  of  the  most 
interesting  questions  in  connection  with 
this  subject  of  the  Destructive  Criticism; 
in  fact,  the  discovery  that  he  will  pre- 
sent to  you  has  been  pronounced  by  no 
less   an   authority   than   Sir   Robert   An- 
derson, of  Great  Britain,  as  a  discovery 
that  deals  the  most  stunning  blow  to  the 
Radical  Criticism  that  has  yet  been  dealt 
by  scholarship.     I  have  the  pleasure  of 
introducing   to   you    Rev.   Robert    Cam- 
eron   D.D.,  Editor  of  "The  Watchword 
and  Truth,"  who  will  address  us  upon 
the  subject  stated. 


ADDRESS  OF  REV.  DR.  ROBERT  CAMERON 
"The  New  Key  to  the  Psalm  Titles" 


I  have  but  five  or  ten  minutes  in  which 
to   condense   what  ought  to  occupy   at 
least  three-quarters  of  an  hour,  and  1. 
therefore,  can  only  indicate  to  you  the 
wonderful    discovery   that   has    recently 
been  made,-a  discovery  which  Dr.  Bui- 
linger   says  is  the  most  marvelous   dis- 
covery made  in  Biblical  research  for  the 
last  two  hundred  years.    "The  Titles  of 
the   Psalms,"   by  James   William   Thir- 
tle,  published   by   H'enry   Frowde,   Lon- 
don,    Edinburgh,     .Glasgow     and     New 
York,  is  the  name  of  the  book.    Sir  Rob- 
ert Anderson  says  that  the  result  of  the 
discovery  is  to  utterly  destroy— not  sim- 
ply discredit,  but  destroy-the  hypothesis 
of  the  Higher  Critics.  , 

The  discovery  is  simply  this:  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  titles  to  the  Psalms     I 
am  glad  there  are  so  many  scholars  here 
this  morning,  who  will  perfectly  under- 
stand every  single  thing  I  have  to  say 
about  it.    Everyone  knows  that  the  mu- 
sical notes  of  the  Psalms  are  in  utter 
confusion;    they   are    utterly    misunder- 
stood.   Delitzsch  says  the  significance  of 
them  was  lost  at  an  early  date.     Well- 
hausen  states-and  you  will  find  this  m 
the    Polychrome    Bible,    and    of    course 
that  is  uj)  to  date  and  has  the  highest 
scholarship-that  in  most  cases  the  mu- 
sical titles  are  unintelligible  to  us. 
Now,  then,  Mr.  Thirtle  has  discovered 


the  significance   of  these  musical  titles 
in  a  singular  way,  and  when  I  state  it 
you  will  say,  "It  is  so  simple,  why  was 
not  I  bright  enough  to   see   thatr      it 
was   said   here  yesterday  morning  that 
the  Pentateuch  was  written  right  along 
without    any   divisions    or    punctuations, 
and   with   no   titles    given   to   the   Five 
Books.    The  same  is  true  of  the  Psalms. 
The  Oriental  writing  did  not  have  para- 
graphs,  nor   punctuation   points,    as   we 
have  to  assist  the  eye  and  help  the  un- 
derstanding.   Therefore,  the  Psalms  are 
written  in  that  way  and  dovetailed  into 
one  another.     In  what  way  could  they 
determine  where  a  Psalm  ended?    Some 
of  them  had  no  name  and  were  called 
"Orphan  Psalms." 

Now  suppose  that  all  the  Psalms  were 
written  so  that  at  the  top  of  the  page 
there  was  a  Literary  Title  indicating  who 
wrote  it,  when  it  was  written,  the  occa- 
sion out  of  which  it  grew  and  the  nature 
and  the  character  of  the  Psalm.    Suppose 
that  there  was  a  Musical  Title  put  at  the 
bottom  of  it,  stating  its  place  in  the  Jew- 
ish Calendar,  the  time  when  it  was  to  be 
used,  and  where  it  was  to  be  used.    Now, 
then,  grant  that  they  put  in  Psalm  after 
Psalm  in  this  way,  and  you  will  see  how 
easy  it  is  to  separate  the  Musical  Title 
from  the  bottom  of  one  Psalm  and  join 
it  to  the  Literary  Title  at  the  top  of  the 
90 


Psalm   following.      That    was    the    very 
thing  that  was  done. 

I  happened  to  see  the  gentleman  who 
discovered  it  two  days  after  he  found  it 
out,  and  he  was  in  perfect  ecstacy  about 
it.  I  said  to  him,  "Thirtle,  do  you  see 
what  that  does?  It  knocks  the  bottom 
out  of  the  hypothesis  of  the  Higher 
Criticism." 

He  said,  "I  see  it  does,  but  I  won't 
put  that  in  my  book.  The  scholars  may 
work  that  out." 

You  see,  then,  how  this  would  obviate 
the  great  confusion  as  to  the  time,  occa- 
sion and  circumstances  under  which 
these  Psalms  could  be  used. 

Change  the  position  of  the  Musical 
Title  e.  g.,  of  Psalm  iv.  and  put  it  back 
to  Psalm  iii.  At  once  the  whole  Psalter 
is  filled  with  light. 

Now,  bear  in  mind  that  we  have  the 
Psalms  exactly  as  they  have  been  hand- 
ed down  to  us  by  the  Seventy,  who  made 
their  translation  two  hundred  years  be- 
fore Christ;  that  those  Seventy  schol- 
ars knew  absolutely  nothing  about  the 
significance  of  those  Musical  Titles,  the 
liturgical  notes.  It  had  dropped  out  of 
the  knowledge  of  the  most  scholarly  men 
in  the  Jewish  nation  two  hundred  years 
before  the  days  of  our  Lord. 

The  Psalms,  then,  date  further  back 
than  the  period  of  the  Septuagint;  but 
how  far  back? 

Sir  Robert  Anderson  says,  it  seems 
utterly  incredible  that  the  Sanhedrim  of 
the  Septuagint  period — which  was  prac- 
tically the  same  body  that  existed  in  the 
time  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  the  College 
of  the  Great  Synagogue — utterly  incredi- 
ble that  that  body  should  have  allowed 
the  key  to  the  Musical  Titles  to  have 
dropped  out  of  their  consciousness.  It 
must,  therefore,  have  been  lost  before 
their  time.  Therefore,  Delitzsch  and 
others  are  right  in  saying  that  the  mean- 
ing of  these  musical  symbols  was  lost 
at  the  destruction  of  the  First  Temple. 

Now,  where  does  this  lead  us?  The 
Psalms  are  carried  clear  back  to  the 
days  of  Ezra.  We  must  look  for  a  time 
when  these  musical  titles  could  have  been 
appended.  One  thing  is  very  evident: 
that    whenever    Psalm    and    Title    were 

91 


brought  together,  the  services  of  the 
Temple  were  in  full  force.  The  Psalms 
could  not  possibly  have  been  thus  gath- 
ered together  after  the  days  of  Josiah 
and  his  great  revival.  It  could  not  have 
happened  under  the  last  three  Kings; 
therefore,  we  have  the  Psalter  practic- 
ally as  we  have  it  now  clear  back  to  the 
days  of  Josiah.  At  that  remote  period 
we  find  that  the  chief  musicians  who  were 
appointed  according  to  King  David,  had 
given  titles  to  them:  one  by  Moses,  many 
by  David,  and  some  by  the  sons  of 
Asaph,  and  many  were  assigned  to  cer- 
tain Feasts,  or  to  choirs,  or  to  some  spe- 
cial use  in  the  Temple. 

It  is  utterly  unbelievable  that  men  in 
the  days  of  Josiah  could  have  given  these 
titles,  unless  they  had  good  reason  for 
believing  that  they  belonged  to  them. 
And  thus  we  get  back  not  far  from  the 
days  of  Solomon  for  the  origin  of  these 
titles  for  the  Psalms. 

If  it  be  true  that  you  do  find  one 
or  two  of  these  Psalms  that  were 
post-Exilian,  or  about  the  time  of  the 
Captivity,  it  simply  proves  that  the 
Psalter  existed  practically  in  its  entirety 
at  that  time,  and  that  a  few  additions 
were  then  made. 

Permit  me  to  say  that  I  hope  the  time  is 
coming  when  lovers  of  God's  Word  will 
not  any  longer  have  to  be  bleeding  with 
sorrow  or  boiling  with  indignation  at 
the  way  in  which  men  have  talked  about 
our  Lord, — that  He  did  not  know  when 
He  said  that  David  was  the  principal 
author  of  the  Psalter.  Let  us  hope  that 
there  will  be  more  of  modesty  among 
these  men;  that  they  will  believe  that 
there  are  j30.me  things  that  they  do  not 
know,  and  some  things  which  our  Lord 
did  know;  and  that  among  the  things 
that  He  knew  were,  that  Moses  was  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch  and  that  David 
was  the  principal  author  of  the  Psalter. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  discovery  at 
this  time  is  very  similar  to  the  discov- 
eries that  have  been  made  by  the  arch- 
aeologists. Just  as  a  man  gets  dead  sure 
that  something  is  wrong  with  the  Bible, 
some  old  Bedouin  sheik  stubs  his  toe 
against  a  brick  or  a  tablet  and  all  they 
claim  is  disproved.    And  now  just  as  they 


have  been  dead  sure  that  the  Psalter 
never  could  have  been  written  earlier 
than  the  days  of  the  Maccabees,  God 
has  let  this  man  discover  the  significance 
of  these  titles  that  pushes  their  origin 
back  beyond  the  days  of  the  Exile. 

Do  you  ask  how  he  discovered  it? 
In  a  very  simple  way. 

In  the  last  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Ha- 
bakkuk,  and  the  thirty-eighth  chapter  of 
the  Book  of  Isaiah,  he  found  two  Psalms 
standing  out  alone,  exactly  as  they  were 
originally  written.  Examining  them  he 
found  that  the  Literary  Title  was  at  the 
opening,  the  musical  title  at  the  close. 


He  made  his  discovery  known  to  Col- 
onel Conder,  the  head  of  the  Palestine 
Exploration  Society  of  London,  and  Col- 
onel Conder  said  that  the  Oriental 
Psalms  from  1500  to  500  B.  C,  have  that 
exact  arrangement  so  far  as  he  has  given 
them  examination. 

There  has  not  been  a  single  schol- 
ar thus  far  that  has  questioned  the 
discovery;  but  hundreds  of  them  have 
written  to  the  author,  declaring  it  to  be 
the  most  marvellous  discovery  that  has 
been  made,  and  acknowledging  how  stu- 
pid we  have  been  that  we  did  not  see  it 
long  ago! 


ADDRESS  OF  REV.  DR.  MACKENZIE. 


"The  Right  of  Defence' 


[The  last  place  on  the  program  for 
Wednesday  evening  was  assigned  to 
Rev.  Robert  MacKenzie,  D.D.,  formerly 
Professor  in  the  San  Francisco  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  now  pastor  of  the  Rut- 
gers Riverside  Presbyterian  Church, 
New  York  City.  For  reasons  given  by 
President  Hall  his  address  was  deferred 
until  Thursday  morning.  As  Dr.  Mac- 
Kenzie was  not  able  to  be  present  at  that 
session,  he  has  kindly  prepared  his  ad- 
dress in  written  form  for  publication  in 
the  Report. — Editor.] 

Paul  says  that  he  was  sent  for  the  de- 
fence of  the  Gospel.  The  word  he  uses 
for  defence  is  our  word  apologetic.  For 
sinister  reasons  apologetics  is  slightingly 
spoken  of,  yet  it  has  scriptural  warrant 
and  apostolic  example.  It  has  come  to 
pass  that  to  say  a  word  in  defence  of  the 
Gospel,  or  of  the  Bible,  as  we  have  it, 
is  at  once  to  meet  the  objections  of  two 
opposing  parties.  One  party  deprecates 
the  effort  on  the  ground  that  the  Bible 
need  not  be  defended;  the  other  on  the 
ground  that  the  Bible  should  not  be  de- 
fended, that  it  should  lie  open  to  all 
manner  of  attacks.  If  it  is  what  we 
claim  for  it,  it  can  not  be  injured.     To 


defend  it  is  to  acknowledge  that  some- 
where and  in  some  conditions  it  is  weak. 
To  form  a  league  against  the  Bible  is 
laudable,  scientific  and  in  the  interest  of 
scholarship;  to  form  a  league  for  the 
Bible  is  reprehensible,  narrow  and  mis- 
chievous. 

This  is  a  convenient  assumption;  but 
not  readily  granted  in  a  world  of  fair 
play.  The  assumption  is  not  without  its 
parallels  in  other  fields  of  contest.  China 
has  been  assumed  to  be  fair  game  and 
the  prey  of  Western  nations;  to  be  ex- 
ploited and  divided  for  Western  pur- 
poses. For  China  or  any  of  its  friends 
to  defend  its  integrity  is  mischievous, 
hindering  to  the  progress  of  the  new 
civilization,  and  is  the  rise  of  a  Yellow 
Peril;  which  assumption  is  likely  to  be 
roughly  treated  by  the  hard  facts  of  the 
case.  For  the  right  of  defence  is  a  pri- 
mary right  of  human  nature  in  regard  to 
any  possession.  It  is  gratuitous  as  it  is 
futile  to  question  our  right  to  defend 
the  most  sacred  of  all  our  possessions 
as  Christians. 

When  the  right  to  defend  the  Bible  is 
admitted    we   are   then   told   with   naive 


92 


blandness  that  all  the  new  thinking  and 
reverend  scholarship  is  against  the  evan- 
gelical view  of  the  Bible.  Just  what 
these  ornamental  adjectives  "new"  and 
"reverend"  mean  in  the  terminology  of 
the  day  has  nowhere  been  defined. 
Thinking  is  as  old  as  man,  and  scholar- 
ship has  been  reverend  since  it  first 
considered  religious  subjects.  The  forms 
of  thought  and  the  principles  of  scholar- 
ship have  long  been  fixed.  If  these 
comfortable  adjectives  mean  anything  it 
is  something  like  this:  Two  young  men 
of  equal  parts,  of  similar  training  on 
similar  subjects  by  the  same  professors, 
come  out  into  the  arena  of  religious  ex- 
pression, one  speaking  against  the  Evan- 
gelical view  of  the  Bible  and  the  other 
for  it;  the  one  speaking  against  it  is  as- 
sumed, by  that  fact  itself,  to  be  the 
greater  scholar,  and  the  one  speaking 
for  it,  by  that  fact  itself,  to  be  the  lesser. 
Thus  there  is  at  last  discovered  a  royal 
and  a  cheap  road  to  new  learning  and 
reverend  scholarship.  But  such  grave 
questions  as  those  involved  in  the  Evan- 
gelical and  traditional  view  of  the  Bible 
are  not  settled  by  such  naive  assump- 
tions. 

Much  is  said  at  the  present  time  on  the 
supposed  overthrow  of  all  traditional  be- 
liefs by  rationalistic  higher  criticism,  and 
of  the  necessity  under  which  every  in- 
telligent man  now  lies  to  adapt  himself 
to  a  new  condition  of  things  as  to  the 
Bible,  Christ  and  the  way  of  Salvation. 
Has  this  criticism,  then,  already  and  fi- 
nally won  the  battle?  If  indeed  the  last 
word  has  been  spoken,  if  the  present 
verdict  of  such  criticism  is  confirmed, 
we  can  hardly  contemplate  the  religious 
prospect  with  a  light  heart.  The  Bible, 
as  we  hold  it,  has  done  so  much  in  this 
world,  in  the  way  of  the  education  and 
reformation  of  the  individual,  in  the 
sanctity  of  the  home,  in  the  charity  and 
philanthropy  of  society  and  in  the  free- 
dom of  government,  that  we  may  be 
reasonably  prejudiced  in  its  favor  and 
regretful  at  the  passing  of  such  an  in- 
fluence from  the  motives  of  men.  It 
has  done  all  this  because  it  has  been  re- 
ceived among  us,  not  as  the  word  of  men, 
but,  ?s  it  j§  in  truth,  the  Word  of  God. 


Certainly  this  Book  runs  across  man's 
natural  desires  and  imposes  moral  res- 
traints not  welcome.  It  imposes  duties 
not  easy  to  perform.  It  pronounces  all 
men — even  well-dressed,  well-mannered 
and  educated  men — sinners  before  God. 
It  presents  one  definite  condition  of  sal- 
vation— repentance  and  faith,  and  one 
only  Savior — Jesus  Christ.  It  lifts  up  an 
awful  future  for  those  who  disobey  its 
injunctions  and  refuse  to  repent  and  be- 
lieve in  Christ.  It  thus  commands  our 
intellect  and  our  conscience,  our  hopes 
and  our  fears,  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
in  the  most  peculiar  and  particular  man- 
ner the  Word  of  God  Who  is  our  Crea- 
tor, our  Providence  and  the  Disposer  of 
our  destiny. 

If,  however,  it  is  but  the  word  of  men, 
that  at  once  releases  us  from  its  res- 
traints, its  duties  and  its  beliefs.  If  it  is 
but  the  word  of  men,  that  reduces  the 
book  from  the  level  of  a  religion  to  that 
of  a  philosophy,  and  we  know  at  once 
what  to  expect.  The  world  has  had  its 
philosophies  before  Christ  and  after. 
Masterly  creations  of  the  wisest  of  men 
in  all  the  old  world  continents  are  in  our 
libraries.  But  the  masses  of  mankind 
with  their  needs  have  always  proved  a 
burden  too  heavy  for  any  philosophy  to 
bear.  Nor  were  the  philosophers  them- 
selves able  "to  keep  ^rom  sinking  to  a 
moral  pollution  which  placed  the  civi- 
ization  of  their  time  below  its  barbar- 
ism." 

This  is  the  main  issue  of  the  present 
hour.  Higher  Criticism  seeks  to  show 
that  the  Bible  is  a  religion — the  Word 
and  Will  of  God  to  man.  Rationalistic 
Higher  Criticism  seeks  to  show  that  it 
is  a  philosophy — the  word  of  men  to 
men.  There  can  be  few  concessions  and 
no  compromise  between  these  two.  It 
is  one  or  the  other  for  each  of  us. 

The  effort  to  reduce  the  Bible  to  a 
philosophy  is  an  old  story.  The  curious 
thing  is  that  it  should  be  presented  to 
us  today  as  something  new,  and  as  the 
result  of  a  new  science,  a  new  thinking 
and  a  more  reverend  scholarship.  More 
than  thirty  years  ago  Dr.  Christlieb  of 
Bonn  University  compared  it  to  the  bat- 
tle of  Chalons,  where  the  Romans  ob- 


93 


tained  a  triumph  over  the  invading  and 
devastating  hordes  of  Attila  and  his 
Huns.  "The  bloody  work  of  the  sword 
was  done,  and  the  vast  plain  strewed 
with  countless  heaps  of  dead.  But  for 
three  nights  following" — so  ran  the  tale — 
"the  spirits  of  the  slain  might  be  dis- 
covered hovering  over  the  scenes  of 
their  late  encounters,  and  continuing 
their  ruthless  conflicts  in  the  air."  What- 
ever new  body  this  rationalistic  criticism 
may  take  on,  the  informing  spirit  of  it 
is  a  ghost  of  a  confident,  but  vanquished 
past.  With  this  difference,  however,  the 
original  theory  had  a  deliberate  and  con- 
fessed purpose  to  get  the  Bible  and 
Christ  and  the  Evangelical  church  out 
of  the  way  of  men.  It  went  straight  to 
that  purpose.  It  had  the  courage  of  its 
convictions.  Men  lived  it  out  in  a 
Christless,  Godless  life.  It  did  not  pre- 
tend to  be  religious.  It  knew  it  was  op- 
posed to  the  whole  scheme  of  revealed 
religion  and  said  so.  In  its  present  re- 
vival it  poses  as  peculiarly  religious  and 
uniquely  Christian,  and  bans  to  the 
outer  darkness  of  ignorance  those  "who 
will  not  do  it  reverence.  We  are  told 
by  the  frankest  of  these  critics,  that  if 
the  whole  Bible  were  to  be  given  up  re- 
ligion, would  not  suffer.  The  result  of 
snch  a  loss  is  not  left  to  a  guess  or  to  a 
prophecy.  There  is  a  world  without  the 
Bible — a  world  not  only  in  far-off  Africa 


or  Polynesia,  but  here  all  about  us — 
without  any  regard  to  God's  Word,  or 
God's  law,  or  God's  offer  of  salvation 
through  Jesus  Christ;  a  world  large 
enough  surely  in  which  to  test  this  flip- 
pant prophecy  to  its  utmost  logical  con- 
sequences. Are  they  living  any  better, 
are  they  doing  any  more  for  the  good  of 
men  in  the  life  that  now  is,  than  those 
who  guide  their  faith  and  their  conduct 
by  the  Bible?  Is  their  life  any  way  en- 
riched by  taking  Jesus  Christ  out  of  it? 
Is  the  heart  of  man  purer,  nobler,  by  tak- 
ing the  Holy  Spirit  out  of  it?  Is  death 
made  less  terrible  and  the  grave  more 
hopeful  by  extinguishing  these  words  of 
assurance  in  the  Gospel?  These  are 
questions  to  be  answered,  not  by  suave 
prophecies  of  the  future,  but  by  perti- 
nent facts  of  the  present. 

What  defence  may  now  be  made 
against  this  recrudescence  of  an  old 
theory  should  follow  not  only  the  lines 
of  scholarship,  but  also  the  lines  of 
morals,  of  philanthropy  and  of  Christian 
pity  for  the  multitude.  To  play  at  this 
game  of  subjective  criticism  with  Ho- 
mer,* or  Shakespeare,  or  Goethe  is  to 
entertain  and  amuse  the  studious.  To 
play  at  it  with  the  Bible,  with  the  birth, 
the  death  and  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ,  is  to  rob  men  and  women  of  that 
for  which  there  is  no  known  substitute 
in  the  stress  of  life  and  of  death. 


W 


fourth  (General  Cloplc 


«'  METHOD    PROPOSED    BY    THE    LEAGUE    FOR    REMEDY- 

ING     THE     EVILS  " 


President  Hall:  The  speaker  named 
Sir  Robert  Anderson  in  connection  with 
this  matter.  It  gives  me  pleasure  to  an- 
nounce that  it  is  our  expectation  at  our 
next  Convention  to  have  Sir  Robert  An- 
derson, as  well  as  some  other  represen- 
tatives of  the  British  Bible  League,  and 
other  scholars  of  Great  Britain,  to  ad- 
dress us. 

We  will  now  proceed  with  the  ad- 
dresses under  the  General  Topic  of  the 
morning  session:  "Method  Proposed  by 
the   League   for   Remedying   the   Evils." 

The  first  special  topic  is:  "Concentra- 
tion of  Popular  Attention  upon  the  Best 


Way  of  Mastering  the  Bible  and  What 
Is  in  It." 

It  gives  me  great  pleasure  now  to  in- 
troduce to  you  as  the  first  speaker  on 
this  program,  one  who  has  spoken  to 
you  already  during  the  sessions  of  this 
Convention,  our  beloved  General  Secre- 
tary, the  Rev.  Daniel  S.  Gregory,  D.D., 
LL.D. 

After  Dr.  Gregory,  other  members  of 
the  League  will  address  us.  This  ses- 
sion will  doubtless  prove  to  be  to  all 
who  are  present  one  of  the  most  inter- 
esting in  all  the  series.  Dr.  Gregory 
will  now  address  you. 


f^irst  Special  CCopic 

'Concentration  of  Popular  Attention  upon  the  Best  Way  of  Mastering  the  Bible 

and  What  Is  in  It" 

ADDRESS  BY  REV.  DR.  GREGORY 
"Method  Proposed  Involves  a  Three-fold  .  Campaign" 


I  am  glad  to  stand  here,  brethren,  as 
representing  especially  the  Education 
Committee  of  The  American  Bible 
League.  Many  of  the  members  of  the 
Committee  are  absent  for  causes  beyond 
their  control.  President  Buttz  would 
rather  be  here,  I  am  sure,  than  to  be 
made  Bishop  away  on  the  Pacific  Coast; 


and  Dr.  Willis  J.  Beecher  would  be  here 
if  anything  less  stood  in  the  way  than 
the  Seminary  Commencement,  and  the 
fortieth  anniversary  of  the  graduation 
of  his  class  at  Auburn;  and  Principal 
Sheraton  would  be  here,  were  it  within 
the  limits  of  possibility.  I  represent, 
the   Education  Committee,  however,  as 


9i 


we  have  had  much  conference  concern- 
ing the  plans  of  the  League. 

Under  the  "Method  Proposed  by  the 
League  for  Remedying  the  Evils,"  I  am 
to  consider,  in  particular,  "the  concen- 
tration of  attention  upon  the  mastery  of 
the  Bible  and  what  is  in  it." 

We  assume  that  the  Bible  is  the  source 
and  basis  of  our  civilization  and  of  all 
that  is  best  in  the  civilization  of  the 
world,  and  we  are  seeking  to  present 
the  remedy  for  the  evils  of  which  we 
have  been  told  during  this  Convention, 
and  which  sorely  need  to  be  remedied. 

Those  evils  you  may  sum  up  briefly: 

(i)  As  a  lack  of  knowledge  of  the 
Bible.  That  has  been  demonstrated  by 
the  recent  examinations  of  students  by 
college  professors  and  the  public  school 
teachers  and  superintendents;  so  that  no 
one  can  possibly  doubt  the  density  of 
the  ignorance  of  the  Bible  that  exists 
in  high  places  and  in  low  places. 

(2)  A  lack  of  reverence  for  the  Bible, 
consequent  upon  lack  of  knowledge  of 
what  it  is  and  what  it  claims  to  be.  You 
have  heard  enough  during  this  Conven- 
tion to  convince  you  that  this  age  is 
peculiar  in  its  monumental  lack  of  rev- 
erence for  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God. 

(3)  A  lack  of  obedience  to  the  Bible 
in  its  commands,  consequent  upon  the 
lack  of  knowledge  of  it  and  of  reverence 
for  it.  And  this  lack  of  obedience  mani- 
festly extends  from  the  failure  in  the 
smallest  thing  connected  with  individ- 
ual honesty,  away  up  to  the  fatal  failure 
to  obey  the  Great  Commission  of  Jesus 
Christ  to  carry  the  Gospel  into  all  the 
earth. 

The  Bible  being  at  the  basis,  there  is 
need  of  concentration  of  attention  just 
now  on  the  Bible,  in  order,  not  to  find 
out  something  about  the  Bible,  but  to 
find  out  what  it  is  and  what  is  in  it.  We 
must  get  the  Bible  back  into  its  true 
place  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the 
people;  and  we  must  get  the  people  and 
the  institutions  back  to  their  place  on 
the  Bible;  if  we  are  to  remedy  the  exist- 
ing evils. 

We  have  undertaken,  therefore,  under 
the  influence  of  the  profound  conviction 
that  this  must  be  done,  9  three-fold  cam- 


paign: a  campaign  of  education  on  the 
Bible,  a  campaign  of  new  literary  work 
for  the  Bible;  and  a  campaign  of  national 
and  international  organization  of  Chris- 
tian and  conservative  forces  for  the  de- 
fense and  dissemination  of  the  truths  of 
the  Bible. 

I.  The  Campaign  of  Education  on  the 
Bible.  Attend  for  a  moment  to  the  con- 
templated campaign  of  education  on  the 
Bible.     That  lies  at  the  basis. 

"The  best  way  of  mastering  the  Bible 
and  what  is  in  it," — that  is  the  way  it  is 
put  in  our  statement.  We  propose,  in 
the  first  place,  a  new  and  natural  method 
of  studying  the  Bible  and  of  presenting 
the  Bible  truths. 

Old  and  Artificial  Methods 

The  present  ignorance  of  the  Bible, 
now  everywhere  in  evidence,  is  proof 
of  the  failure  of  the  old  methods.  We 
shall  not  stop  to  show  that  that  is  so. 

The  fragmentary  method  was  tried  for 
a  generation  or  two.  We  were  kept 
studying  the  comments  upon  verse  after 
verse,  on  the  tacit  assumption  that  no 
verse  had  any  connection  with  any  other 
verse,  until  we  wearied  of  that,  and 
would  have  no  more  of  it. 

So  the  lesson  systems  came  in,  and  we 
have  had  series  upon  series  of  such  sys- 
tems, showing  that  men  deeply  felt  that 
there  was  need  of  system  in  the  study 
of  the  Bible.  But  these  systems  have 
been  artificial,  all  of  them;  the  latest  of 
all  the  most  so  of  all.  The  men  who 
have  been  engaged  in  preparing  them 
deserve  our  gratitude.  They  have  done 
the  best  they  could,  doubtless;  and  we 
will  look  for  more  light  and  improve- 
ment for  the  time  to  come.  But  you 
hear  everywhere  that  the  people  are 
weary  of  Lesson  Systems.  They  are  so 
because  the  systems  are  artificial,  and 
because  they  do  not  take  you  directly 
to  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God,  but 
rather  by  means  of  most  useful  lesson 
leaves  and  other  devices  take  you  away 
from  it. 

And  it  is  impossible  to  grasp  the  sys- 
tem, however  valuable  it  may  be.  You 
study  in  seven  years  your  three  hundred 
and  fifty  Lessons  in  a  ^o-galkd  system  f 


^ 


and  at  the  end  of  the  seven  years  the 
best  memory  in  Christendom  has  been 
found  unable  to  hold  that  system  so  as 
to  tell  what  has  been  taught  in  that  time. 
When  you  have  passed  on  from  each 
Lesson  you  have  lost  its  connection  with 
the  Bible,  and  lost  the  Lesson,  too. 

Men  have  at  last  wearied  of  that 
drudgery;  for  it  has  inevitably  become 
drudgery.  I  have  met  many  a  Sunday- 
school  teacher  who  has  been  engaged  in 
the  work,  say  for  twenty  years,  who  has 
told  me:  "I  am  tired  of  this  thing.  I 
have  been  studying  and  following  these 
so-called  systems  year  after  year,  but  I 
don't  know  any  more  about  the  Bible 
than  I  did  twenty  years  ago;  in  fact  I 
don't  think  I  know  as  much  about  it  as 
I  did  then.  I  am  exhausted,  and  I  am 
going  out  of  business  as  a  Sunday-school 
teacher." 

There  was  a  call  for  something  bet- 
ter. To  this  call  the  New  Critical 
Method  was  doubtless  a  response. 
There  was,  so  to  speak,  a  vacuum  in  the 
minds  of  teachers  and  professors  in 
charge  of  instruction  in  the  Bible.  Well, 
just  at  the  psychological  moment  there 
came  all  this  German  material, — inter- 
esting, ingenious,  imaginative,  ready  to 
fill  that  vacuum.  The  two  needs  meet, 
and  so  we  have  had  our  recent  develop- 
ment of  the  critical  system  of  studying 
and  presenting  the  Bible,  which  they  are 
seeking  now  to  introduce  into  all  the 
schools  and  colleges  and  Sunday  schools. 

That  critical  method  has  taken  the 
Bible  apart  into  bits  and  scraps  and 
scattered  it  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  as 
we  have  heard  and  have  reason  to  know. 
When  one  comes  upon  its  results  he  feels 
that  he  does  not  know  exactly  where  he  is. 

I  will  give  you  a  parable  of  my  barn, 
that  will  illustrate  what  I  mean.  When 
I  lived  on  a  :anch,  a  cyclone  came  one 
night,  and  its  results  will  perhaps  show 
you  the  feeling  I  have  had  after  going 
through  all  these  works  of  the  radical 
critics.  I  had  a  barn  that  was  a  fairly 
good  structure.  In  it  there  were  a  good 
many  valuable — almost  indispensable — 
things;  but  one  night  there  came  a  cy- 
clone while  I  was  asleep,  and  the  next 
jnorning    I    found    that    barn    scattered 


over  forty  acres  of  prairie  land.  The 
only  piece  of  its  contents  that  came  out 
of  it  not  entirely  crushed  and  scattered 
was  a  light  road-wagon;  and  that  had 
been  lifted  bodily  and  carried  a  quarter 
of  a  mile  and  left  in  what  we  Western 
people  call  a  slough.  That  wagon  was 
the  only  thing  left  in  recognizable  form. 

Now,  when  I  look  at  the  work  cf  the 
critics,  and  find  that  the  only  fragment 
left  of  the  Pentateuch,  for  example,  is  a 
little  piece  of  Deuteronomy,  and  that 
even  that  has  been  swept  all  the  way 
from  Moses  to  Josiah,  it  reminds  me  of 
that  cyclone  and  the  wagon  in  the 
slough.  I  found  I  was  not  warranted  in 
attempting  to  reconstruct  my  barn  out 
of  the  wrecked  material;  in  fact  there 
was  nothing  left  of  it.  Quite  as  absurd 
would  be  the  attempt  to  reconstruct  this 
material  of  the  Pentateuch  that  has  been 
wrecked  and  wrenched  and  scattered 
far  and  wide.  You  have  only  to  read 
the  attempted  reconstructions  that  have 
been  undertaken  of  late,  in  order  to  see 
just  how  absurd  the  attempt  at  recon- 
struction is. 

The  event  has  made  it  sufficiently  clear 
that  these  proposed  methods  have  not 
fully  satisfied  the  needs  they  were  devised 
to  meet.  They  have  been  too  artificial 
and  mechanical. 

A  New  and  Natural  Method 

There  seems  to  us  to  be  a  call  for 
something  better;  for  a  method  that 
shall  be  natural,  not  artificial;  that  shall 
be  constructive  and  truly  scientific,  and 
not  destructive  and  scattering  and  un- 
literary;  and  that  shall  be  cumulative  in 
its  results, — so  that  when  a  man  has 
studied  one  year,  or  five  years,  or  ten 
years,  or  twenty  years,  he  can  feel  that 
he  has  added  the  treasures  of  knowledge 
from  all  the  work  of  the  years  to  what 
he  started  with  at  the  beginning. 

The  Secretary  has  sketched  this 
method,  and  the  Education  Committee 
has  considered  it  carefully;  and  it  has 
been  presented  for  your  consideration 
in  a  pamphlet  entitled  "Bible  Study  for 
Permanent  Results  and  Use,"  that  will 
be  scattered  this  morning,  so  that  you 
can  see  and  understand  for  yourselves 
the  general  method  proposed, 


97 


Study  of  the  Bible  in  its  Natural  Divi- 
sions. 

We  propose,  first  of  all,  to  have  this 
method  a  natural  one.  We  are  not  go- 
ing to  take  the  Bible  apart  and  study  a 
fragment  here  and  a  fragment  there. 
We  propose  to  follow  the  natural  plan 
of  the  Bible,  if  such  a  plan  can  be  found. 

Now,  there  are  natural  parts  to  the 
Bible.  The  Pentateuch,  for  example, 
gives  you  the  origin  and  organization 
of  the  Divine  religion  as  the  Law.  The 
rest  of  the  Old  Testament  exhibits  the 
development  of  that  religion: 

(i)  In  the  Historical  Books  in  con- 
nection with  the  national  life  and  insti- 
tutions and  customs  of  the  people,  so 
as  to  shape  the  public  life; 

(2)  In  the  Poetical  Books,  the  devel- 
opment of  that  religion  in  connection 
with  the  inner  religious  life,  because  you 
must  always  have  a  basis  of  conviction 
and  feeling  if  you  are  to  have  any  prac- 
tical vital  religion; 

(3)  In  the  Prophetical  Books,  the 
struggle  of  Divine  Grace  with  the  peo- 
ple to  save  them  from  destruction  and 
prepare  for  the  future  Messiah  and  the 
Gospel. 

Now,  these  are  natural  divisions,  and 
each  of  them  falls  into  its  natural  sub- 
divisions. If  we  can  only  study  these 
divisions  and  sub-divisions  in  their  nat- 
ural order  and  in  a  natural  way,  you  can 
readily  see  what  the  outcome  of  such 
study  will  be:  you  can  come  back  to 
the  Bible  with  the  results  of  your  study 
every  time,  and  find  everything  you 
have  ever  learned  before  right  there  in 
the  Bible  itself;  and  you  can  add  a  thou- 
sand-fold to  it  as  you  go  on  to  succes- 
sive years  of  study. 

To  show  the  difiference  between  a  nat- 
ural and  an  artificial  method,  let  me 
call  attention  to  a  method  that  has  been 
devised  —  which  has  been  popular  and 
advocated  by  many  able  men  —  which 
takes  up  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament in  dispensations.  Following  this 
method  your  teacher  says:  "Why,  the 
oldest  book  in  the  Bible  is  Job."  So  he 
begins  with  Job,  and  you  are  called  upon 
to  study  Job  first  of  all,  and  the  Penta- 
teuch comes  somewhere  after  that.  Your 


Bible  is  "pied"  for  you,  as  the  printers 
say.  And  after  you  have  gone  through 
it  in  that  way  you  never  get  the  parts 
back  in  place  again;  for  this  method 
scatters  the  parts,  rather  than  concen- 
trating attention  upon  the  Book  as  it 
is  and  upon  every  part  of  it  in  natural 
order. 

Constructive  and  Literary  Study 

We  propose  to  study  the  Bible  in  its 
unity  and  in  its  completeness,  and,  there- 
fore, to  make  the  study  constructive  and 
truly  literary. 

One  great  trouble  with  the  methods 
of  Bible  study  is  the  trouble  that  we 
have  had  in  the  universities  in  the  past 
in  the  study  of  English  Literature.  Years 
ago  the  editor  of  The  Dial,  of  Chicago, 
wrote  to  all  the  leading  professors  in 
the  great  universities  and  asked  them 
to  set  forth  how  English  literature  was 
studied  in  the  universities.  There  was 
a  series  of  papers  printed  from  the  lead- 
ing professors,  and  it  was  generally  ad- 
mitted after  the  series  was  completed, 
that  it  demonstrated  just  one  thing,  and 
that  was  that  English  Literature  was 
not  studied  at  all  in  any  proper  sense 
in  our  universities.  There  was  a  little 
biography  (for  instance,  they  would  tell 
the  student  that  when  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton was  born  he  was  so  little  that  they 
could  put  him  into  a  quart  mug) ;  ^there 
was  a  little  mechanical  history;  there 
were  a  great  many  curious  things  and 
all  that,  told  the  student  by  way  of  in- 
formation; there  was  a  little  poor  phil- 
ology and  perhaps  a  little  bad  grammar, 
and  a  little  attention  to  figures  of  speech, 
and  so  on;  but  of  attention  to  English 
Literature  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense 
there  was  none  worth  mentioning.  Why, 
a  literary  production  is  a  great  and  mas- 
terful construction,  having  a  theme,  an 
aim,  an  organic  unity.  If  you  are  to 
study  it  as  Literature,  you  must  study 
it  from  that  point  of  view.  You  need 
to  begin  by  asking  to  what  department 
of  literature  a  production  belongs,  and  to 
get  all  the  light  that  can  be  had  con- 
cerning its  origin  and  environment  and 
aim, — and  then  to  study  it  carefully  with 
all  the  light  possible  from  these  sources. 


98 


Now,  that  same  method  must  be  ap- 
plied to  the  Bible  if  you  are  to  get  any 
satisfactory  .esults.  If  you  study  the 
"Julius  Caesar"  of  Shakespeare,  the  very 
first  thing  you  ask  is,  What  is  Shakes- 
peare doing  here?  Is  this  prose  or 
poetry?  If  it  is  a  tragedy,  what  is  the 
one  great  action  that  is  presented  here? 
Well,  when  you  find  out  that  that  action 
is  "The  Death-Struggle  of  the  Old  Ro- 
man Republicanism  with  the  Rising  Cae- 
sarism,"  you  have  the  key  to  that  drama. 
Applying  the  key  you  find  that  death- 
struggle  presented  with  most  marvelous 
movement  and  unity.  There  is  a  suc- 
cessful conspiracy  against  Caesar.  The 
First  Act  gives  its  inception  in  which 
the  elements  are  brought  to  light;  the 
Second  Act,  the  organization  of  the  con- 
spiracy; the  Third  Act,  the  execution  of 
that  conspiracy  and  the  scattering  of 
the  forces  from  the  dead  body  of  the 
fallen  Caesar. 

Then  follows  the  military  Death-Grap- 
ple: the  Fourth  Act  setting  forth  the 
gathering  of  the  military  forces  for  the 
death-struggle,  so  that  at  the  end  of  the 
Act  they  face  each  other  on  the  Plains 
of  Philippi;  the  Fifth  Act  depicting  the 
death-struggle  itself,  over  which  the 
spirit  of  Caesar  comes  to  preside.  The 
old  Roman  Republicanism  is  dead;  Cae- 
sarism  is  triumphant.  With  this  key 
you  are  prepared  to  come  to  an  under- 
standing of  the  general  plan  of  the  "Ju- 
lius   Caesar"   of   Shakespeare. 

When  that  has  been  completed  the 
detailed  study  of  the  tragedy  becomes 
a  delight,  instead  of  a  drudgery.  When 
you  have  studied  it  in  both  ways,  you 
don't  have  to  remember  it;  "it  remem- 
bers itself,"  as  one  of  my  bright  men 
once  said  to  me  after  such  a  study  of  it. 
It  has  become  one  of  your  permanent 
possessions. 

If  you  are  to  study  the  Bible  so  as  to 
get  a  masterful  hold  upon  it,  you  must 
study  it  in  a  similar  way.  It  is  of  little 
use  to  study  Genesis  m  bits  and  frag- 
ments; but  if  you  once  get  the  idea  that 
Genesis  has  just  two  things  in  it — the 
two  being  really  one — the  origin  of  the 
Divine  religion  of  redemption  in  its  old 
form,  qr  as  the  X>aw,  and  the  origin  of 


the  people  who  arc  to  become  the  de- 
positary of  that  religion;  then  you  have 
the  key  to  the  Book,  and  everything  falls 
into  its  place  in  a  natural  and  complete 
plan. 

And  if  you  once  get  the  idea  that  the 
Gospel  according  to  Matthew  is,  not  a 
biography  but  the  written  record  of  the 
preaching  of  Matthew — history  declares 
it  to  be  that — intended  to  demonstrate 
to  the  Jew  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah 
of  the  Prophets;  so  that  it  is  an  argu- 
ment of  the  closest  kind  based  upon  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures;  you  have  the 
key  to  the  Gospel  according  to  Mat- 
thew. Its  natural  divisions  fall  apart 
of  themselves  before  you.  And  the  Jew- 
ish origin  and  aim  of  this  Gospel  furnish 
the  key  to  those  forty-two  parts  out  of 
one  hundred  that  are  in  Matthew  but 
not  in  any  of  the  other  Gospels.  You 
will  find  that  they  are  explained  by  the 
fact  that  they  are  for  the  Jew,  intended 
to  show  to  him  and  the  man  of  like  na- 
ture that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  that  he 
may  be  led  to  accept  Him  as  his  Savior. 

Beyond  all  question  this  constructive 
and  literary  method  may  be  applied  to 
all  the  Bible.  One  thing  that  we  pro- 
pose to  do  is  to  help  to  apply  it. 

Cumulative  and  Accumulative  Study 

This  will  lead  to  cumulative  results  in 
the  study  of  the  Bible. 

Men  hate  bits  and  scraps;  at  least 
men  of  sense.  Man  was  made  a  con- 
structive being  rather  than  anything  else 
— if  he  is  not  that  in  measure,  he  is  a 
small  pattern  of  a  man — made  to  be  a 
creator  in  some  sense.  I  say  he  hates 
bits  and  scraps.  The  human  mind  is 
made  so  that  it  has  an  infinite  abhor- 
rence of  all  such  things,  and  of  all  meth- 
ods that  would  direct  its  energies  to  them. 

Now,  this  is  the  method  we  propose 
for  consideration,  adoption  and  practi- 
cal use.  I  have  illustrated  it  in  the 
pamphlets  that  will  be  distributed  to 
those  who  desire  them.  This  method 
is  to  be  advocated,  among  other  things, 
in  our  magazine,  and  is  to  be  set  forth 
in  a  series  of  Bible  League  Primers. 
"Bible  Primer  No.  I."  the  first  of  the 
kind  issued,  is  ready  for  your  cxamina- 


99 


tion  and  for  the  use  of  the  public.  It 
presents  an  "Outline  View  of  the  Bible 
as  God's  Revelation  of  Redemption." 
It  seeks  to  show  how  all  the  books  fall 
into  the  one  great  plan  as  parts  of  the 
unfolding  of  God's  one  work  of  Redemp- 
tion as  Law  and  as  Gospel.  This  is  in- 
tended to  prepare  the  way  for  the  study- 
in  detail  and  in  succession  of  the  natural 
divisions  found  in  the  Bible.  And  all 
this  is  in  order  to  open  up  to  men  its 
teachings  as  the  Way  of  Life. 

II.  The  Campaign  of  Literary  Work  for 
the  Bible. 

The  second  undertaking  in  which  the 
League  is  engaged  is  a  campaign  of  lit- 
erary work. 

It  contemplates  the  use  of  the  con- 
servative scholars  and  forces  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  forward  this  work 
on  the  largest  scale.  We  are  to  get  be- 
yond our  Bible  League  Primers.  We 
are  to  have  Primers  on  the  vital  issues 
that  we  have  been  considering.  We  are 
to  have  Commentaries,  if  the  Lord  will, 
coming  at  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God 
from  this  natural  and  constructive  point 
of  view  that  we  have  been  setting  forth, 
and  treating  the  books  in  such  a  way 
that  when  one  has  studied  one  of  the 
commentaries,  he  will  know  something 
about  what  is  in  the  Bible,  and  not  mere- 
ly something  that  somebody  has  said 
about  the  Bible,  or  about  something  in 
the  Bible  that  somebody  has  said  was 
not  so. 

And  then  we  have  in  contemplation 
(and  on  this  the  lamented  Dr.  Purvis 
was  in  conference  with  us  before  his 
death  and  our  plan  was  fairly  outlined) 
a  great  Bible  Dictionary  and  Encyclo- 
paedia that  shall,  in  its  scholarship  and 
breadth  and  scope,  surpass  the  works 
of  all  the  Encyclopaedias  that  are  now 
being  brought  before  the  public,  and 
that  shall  show  the  falseness  of  the  posi- 
tions which  the  Critics  seek  to  maintain, 
often  with  so  much  scholarship  and 
learning.  The  necessity  for  this  has 
been  felt  very  widely.  I  recollect  that 
President  Buttz,  in  discussing  the  mat- 
ter in  one  of  our  meetings  not  long 
pince,  §aid;  "Th^t  abpv?  everything  else 


is  one  of  the  great  things  we  must  have. 
There  come  to  my  students  at  Drew 
Seminary  the  agents  from  the  publish- 
ers, and  they  say:  'Here  is  the  Ency- 
clopaedia Biblica.  You  can't  afford  to  be 
without  that.'  'Well,  but  I  can't  afiord 
to  buy  it.'  'But  you  can  have  it  for  al- 
most nothing,  for  a  dollar  a  month,  pay- 
ing for  it  as  you  go  along.'  They  treat 
the  Polychrome  Bible  in  much  the  same 
way.  They  get  the  student  to  subscribe 
to  it  as  a  necessity,  at  the  rate  of  a  dol- 
lar a  month;  and  then  the  poor  young 
man  goes  out  into  the  ministry  to  be 
saturated  with  it  and  be  perverted  by  it." 

That  was  the  opinion  of  President 
Buttz,  and  he  said:  "We  must  provide 
something  that  will  give  the  Bible  in 
popular  as  well  as  scholarly  shape; 
something  to  meet  all  these  evil  teach- 
ings that  are  abroad  and  counteract 
them." 

This  is,  in  brief,  one  enterprise  that 
we  have  in  view. 

III.   The  Campaign  of  Organization. 

We  have  a  third  thing  in  contempla- 
tion, a  campaign  of  organization  at  all 
centers  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  for- 
ward our  work  on  these  lines  with  the 
aid  of  all  available  forces. 

We  need  organizations  for  this  pur- 
pose, general  and  local  organizations. 
The  advocates  of  the  views  we  deprecate 
have  been  organized  with  absolutely  per- 
fect generalship,  and  are  pushing  their 
work  with  the  aid  of  almost  limitless  re- 
sources. They  are  backed,  too,  by  sub- 
stantially all  the  great  publishers.  It 
ought  to  be  self-evident  that,  in  this  age 
of  organization,  we  can  never  accom- 
plish anything  without  bringing  the  con- 
servative elements  and  forces  together 
upon  a  common  platform,  and  massing 
them  for  this  work.  All  the  conserva- 
tive scholars  must  be  engaged  in  the 
enterprise  of  pushing  the  study  of  the 
Bible  and  the  understanding  of  it  out 
into  all  the  world. 

In  these  organizations  that  are  pro- 
posed we  shall  have  a  two-fold  aim.  We 
first  want  to  get  the  issues  before  the 
public,  issues  that  have  been  presented 

here.    But  there  is  little  use  in  mere 


100 


talking;  the  evidence  must  be  presented, 
that  the  people  may  be  brought  to  un- 
derstand what  the  real  state  of  the  case  is. 

The  Boston  Transcript,  as  Dr.  Plumb 
told  us,  accuses  us  of  stirring  up  ftrife. 
Well,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  stirred  up 
strife  when  he  was  upon  earth,  and  The 
American  Bible  League  will  have  to  stir 
up  strife  in  this  evil  world,  if  it  accom- 
plishes anything.  We  do  not  propose 
to  do  it  for  the  sake  of  strife,  but  for 
the  sake  of  enlightenment,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  the  people  the  knowl- 
edge they  need.  Discussion  is  the  only 
method  possible  in  the  circumstances. 

But  we  are  to  go  beyond  that,  to  give 
back  to  the  people  the  Bible  itself.  If 
we  can  get  the  Bible  into  the  minds  of 
the  people — beginning  with  the  preach- 
ers, who  will  confess  to  you  that  they 
do  not  at  all  know  the  Bible  as  a  whole 
— why,  the  Bible  will  take  care  of  itself, 
and  all  this  rationalistic  criticism  will 
fall  to  the  ground  in  due  time. 

We  desire,  first  of  all  and  most  of  all, 
to  get  the  leaders  and  the  people  down 
to  this  work  of  studying  the  Bible  and 
of  mastering  it,  from  the  natural,  con- 
structive and  cumulative  point  of  view 
that  has  been  set  forth.  We  desire  to 
get  a  better  knowledge  of  the  Bible  into 
their  minds,  and  to  get  them  back  upon 
the  Bible  again  as  the  basis.  That  is 
what   we    are    for,   not    for   controversy 


but  for  more  light;  and  that  because  we 
believe  the  Bible  to  be  not  only  the 
basis  of  our  civilization  but  also  the  only 
way  of  life  for  perishing  men. 

It  must  be  self-evident  that  all  this 
will  involve  the  use  of  money  as  well 
as  of  brains.  Our  work  has  been  car- 
ried on  with  what  energy  and  means 
could  be  brought  to  bear  upon  it;  but 
the  financial  burden  so  far  has  fallen 
largely  upon  one  who  has  said  nothing 
about  the  burden,  but  to  whom  we  owe 
to  a  larger  extent  than  to  any  other 
this  Convention  and  this  work  that 
has  been  done.  We  look  for  the  help 
of  many  men  of  moderate  means  and 
many  men  of  wealth,  who  will  come  up 
and  aid  in  carrying  forward  the  work. 
We  need  ten  thousand  dollars  a  year  to 
begin  with.  We  need  a  special  fund  of 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  imme- 
diate use.  That  will  be  but  a  trifle  if 
our  friends  could  be  made  to  feel  what 
a  mighty  work  needs  to  be  done,  and 
how  God  demands  that  it  be  done  at 
once.  We  appeal  to  you,  dear  brethren 
in  the  Lord,  for  your  help  in  this  task 
in  which  we  are  engaged.  The  Educa- 
tion Committee  desires  your  interest  in 
it,  your  prayers  in  its  behalf,  your  co- 
operation in  every  way,  that  the  work 
may  be  carried  forward  with  power  to 
that  complete  triumph  for  which  we  look 
through  Christ,  our  Lord  and  Master. 


Dr.  Burrell:  In  pursuance  of  what 
Dr.  Gregory  has  said,  though  I  suppose 
we  have  no  authority  to  take  any  def- 
inite action  here  today,  I  have  in  my 
hands  a  note,  proposing  a  matter  of 
considerable  importance,  and  which 
moves  me  to  suggest  the  following  ac- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  people  who  are 
present: 

Resolved,  That  the  Directors  of  The 
American  Bible  League  be  requested  to 
select,  as  soon  as  possible,  a  local  secre- 
tary for  every  city,  town  and  village  of 
the  United  States  and  Canada,  wJiose 
special  work  shall  be  to  organize  the 
friends  of  the  Bible  into  Local  Auxiliar- 
ies or  Branch  Leagues,  and  to  arrange 
in  that  connection  for  Local  Conferences 
in  general  character  like  that  in  which 


we  are  now  assembled,  and  for  syste- 
matic Bible  Study  in  all  practical  and 
profitable  ways. 

I  am  not  only  a  member  of  the  Bible 
League  but  I  am  also  a  member  of  this 
body  today,  and  it  is  as  such  that  I 
would  now  offer  this  resolution,  if  it  is 
entirely  in  order,  I  would  offer  it  as  a 
request  made  to  The  League.  (Sec- 
onded). 

President  Hall:  All  in  favor  will  re- 
spond by  saying  aye.     It  is  carried. 

We  shall  now  pass  on  to  the  second 
subdivision  of  the  topic  already  an- 
nounced: "Co-operation  with  Existing 
Agencies  in  Interesting  the  Young  in 
Systematic  and  Constructive  Bible 
Study." 


lOI 


The  first  speaker  on  the  program  not 
being  present  at  the  moment,  we  shall 
announce  the  second,  Rev.  Charles  L. 
Fry,  of  St.  Luke's  Church,  Philadelphia, 


and  Literary  Secretary  of  the  Luther 
League  of  America.  It  gives  us  great 
pleasure  to  introduce  our  good  brother, 
Dr.  Fry. 


Second  Special  (Topic: 

"Co-operation  with  Existing  Agencies     in  Interesting  the  Young  in  Systematic 
and  Constructive  Bible  Study" 

ADDRESS   BY   REV.   CHARLES   L.    FRY 

"The  Bible  the  Instrument  of  Spiritual  Power  with  the  Young" 


It  is  perfectly  logical  and  natural  that 
the  final  words  of  this  Convention  should 
be  along  the  line  of  application,  espe- 
cially to  our  young  people  as  being  the 
hope  of  the  future.  If  the  message  may 
not  appeal  to  the  entire  32,000  of  Gid- 
eon's army,  nor  even  to  the  10,000  of  the 
second  count,  it  does  appeal  tremendous- 
ly to  the  faithful  300,  on  whom  the  sav- 
ing of  Israel  depends.  The  Gospel  deals 
with  souls  as  individuals,  not  in  masses. 
Herein  it  differs  radically  from  every 
form  of  Paganism. 

Take  the  whole  system  of  caste  in 
which  a  man  is  born,  how  it  binds  him 
with  fetters  of  steel  hand  and  foot,  so 
that  he  can  not  budge  and  can  not  move. 
But  the  Word  of  God  comes  to  every 
man  as  an  individual,  and  even  if  he  is 
a  very  humble  individual,  it  clothes  that 
man  with  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  the 
Living  God.  Why,  think  of  Luther,  for 
example!  Think  of  how  little  he  had  in 
the  way  of  anything  like  equipment;  but 
have  you  ever  seen  a  statue  of  him  that 
has  not  the  Word  in  one  hand,  and  the, 
other  hand  resting  firmly  on  that  Word, 
as  the  only  source  of  what  he  is  and 
hopes  to  do?  "Not  by  might  nor  by 
power." 

Now,  this  power  of  the  Spirit  upon 
which  we  are  absolutely  dependent 
comes  through  the  Word.  That  is  the 
keynote,  Mr.  Chairman.  There  is  not  a 
word  in  the  language  that  appeals  to 
our  young  people  so  much  as  that  word 
"power."  That  is  what  they  want;  and 
all  who  are  susceptible  to  these  higher 
influences  will  rally  if  we  can  make  posi- 
tively certain  to  them  that  this  Word 
is  the  instrument  of  power.  Now,  they 
do  not  apprehend  that.  We  take  up  the 
hymn,  and  this  is  what  we  sing: 


"From  the  discoveries  of  Thy  Law, 
The  perfect  rules  of  life  I  draw." 

Whilst  this  is  true,  grandly  true,  yet 
we  need  more  than  rules.  We  do  not 
simply  need  the  Word  of  God  as  giving 
us  rules.  Suppose,  then,  you  make  that 
last  line  read: 

"From  the  discoveries  of  Thy  Law, 
Thy  very  life  itself  I  draw" — 

do  you  not  see  what  a  very  diflferent 
gospel  that  is?  It  does  not  disparage 
the  Bible  in  other  respects.  If  this  Book 
were  simply  a  book  of  information,  even 
then  there  is  not  anything  else  like  it 
on  earth.  But  this  is  not  simply  a  book 
of  information;  it  is  far  more  than  that; 
it  is  a  "Book  of  Life."  You  do  not  startle 
at  that  definition;  it  is  one  you  have 
been  accustomed  to  as  long  as  you  can 
remember.  Just  take  that  "Word"  and 
take  that  "Life."  What  does  it  mean?  It 
means  what  it  says:  it  means  Life  comes 
thro'  the  Book.  Isn't  that  a  startling 
statement?  yes;  there  is  but  one  book 
in  the  world  in  that  category;  Life 
comes  by  a  Book.  That  is  to  say,  here 
we  have  not  simply  historic  and  scien- 
tific truths,  but  supremely  moral  and 
spiritual  truth;  and  even  here  the  pre- 
vailing conception  is  far  too  low.  It  is 
not  simply  a  Book  of  spiritual  truth,  it 
is  supremely  and  above  everything  a 
Book  of  Power, 

Ask  the  average  man  among  our 
young  people  what  is  his  conception  of 
the  Book.  He  will  say  to  you  that  it  is 
a  Book  that  tells  us  our  duty,  and  a 
Book  that  awakens  in  us  yearnings  for 
a  higher  Life.  Do  you  say,  "All  that 
is  good  so  far  as  it  goes,  but  it  does  not 
go  half  far  enough?"  It  is  true  so  far 
as   it   goes — awakens   a   yearning   for   a 


102 


higher  Life;  but  the  great  thing  is  that 
it  satisfies  that  yearning.  It  does  not 
simply  awaken  yearnings;  it  does  not 
simply  make  us  wish  to  be  good;  it  does 
not  simply  comfort  us  in  our  sorrows; 
it  gives  us  power.  There  is  not  a  thing 
which  that  Book  tells  us  to  do  but  that 
it  enables  us  to  do  it.  That  is  a  mar- 
velous thing.  That  is  why  it  is  the 
Word  of  God.  With  the  command 
comes  power.  With  every  command  in 
this  Book  comes  power;  it  is  a  Book 
instinct  with  power;  it  is  the  Word  of 
God.  The  vital  question  is,  What  is  the 
value  placed  upon  the  Bible  among  our 
young  people?  Well,  actions  speak 
louder  than  words.  We  have  a  right  to 
judge  by  the  part  it  has  in  the  public 
meetings  and  in  the  young  people's  so- 
cieties,— oftentimes  merely  a  rubric  in 
the  opening  devotional  exercises;  so  much 
so  that  its  omission  would  hardly  be 
noted  as  much  as  that  of  the  opening 
prayer,  or  of  the  opening  hymn. 

One  thing  is  sure:  if  we  can  discover 
the  secret  to  arouse  in  the  hearts  of 
young  men  and  women  who  represent 
the  best  types  of  thought  in  the  next 
generation,  an  intense  enthusiasm  for 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  if  their  very  life 
depended  upon  the  Sacred  Book;  so  that 
a  man  would  rather  lose  his  right  arm 
than  his  confidence  in  the  inspiration, 
genuineness  and  authenticity  of  his  Bi- 
ble, then  the  problem  of  this  Conven- 
tion is  solved. 

As  regards  the  problem  we  are  now 
dealing  with,  we  may  as  well  give  it  up 
and  ask  for  an  easier  one,  unless  our 
young  people  can  be  brought  to  an  en- 
tirely different  conception  of  what  the 
Bible,  is  from  the  universally  prevalent 
conception.  That  is  far  too  low.  That 
conception  is,  that  the  Scriptures  are 
nothing  more  than  a  text-book  of  sacred 
history,  a  manual  of  sacred  geography, 
a  schedule  of  sacred  scenes,  festivals 
and  observances,  a  compendium  of 
sacred  precepts  and  customs,  a  collec- 
tion of  morning  and  evening  exercises. 
If  that  is  the  view,  then  the  thought  of 
this  encyclopedia,  this  dictionary  of 
theological  terms,  this  dictionary  of  good 
morals,  this  atlas  of  by-gone  nations 
being  snatched  from   the  hands   of  our 

103 


young  people  by  the  robber  critics,  may 
be  regarded  by  them  without  a  shudder, 
since  they  do  not  appreciate  what  has 
been  taken  from  them.  A  man  suffers 
the  frenzy  of  desperation  if  he  knows 
he  is  being  robbed  of  his  only  means  of 
livelihood,  on  which  not  only  himself  but 
his  wife  and  children  and  perhaps  his 
aged  parents  are  entirely  dependent  for 
support;  but  this  involves  his  immortal 
soul  rather  than  his  perishing  body. 
When  he  realizes  that  the  destiny  of 
his  deathless  being  is  involved  in  hold- 
ing fast  that  inspired  revelation  which 
is  being  wrenched  out  of  his  grasp,  he 
clings  to  it  with  all  the  energy  qi  which 
he  is  capable. 

If  the  Bible  be  an  inert  printed  page, 
a  mere  product  of  the  bindery,  on  a  par 
with  any  other  book  of  literary  worth- 
ies, made  up  of  sentences,  paragraphs 
and  chapters  containing  information  of 
ancient  civilizations  and  religious  codes, 
or  even  including  precepts  for  our  own 
personal  religious  observance,  and  noth- 
ing more  than  that;  then,  all  its  unique 
value  is  gone,  and  it  is  not  a  Bible  at 
all.  The  Word  of  God  claims  to  be  as 
a  book  what  the  Christ  of  God  claims 
to  be  as  a  man. 

Deny  the  divinity  of  Christ  and  you 
have  no  Savior.  Deny  the  divine  char- 
acter of  the  Book,  and  you  have  no  rev- 
elation. Acknowledge  the  Bible  to  be 
a  good  book,  the  best  of  all  books, 
but  not  in  very  deed  and  truth  what  it 
claims  to  be — the  Word  of  God, — that  is 
exactly  like  acknowledging  Christ  to  be 
a  good  man,  the  best  of  men,  but  not  in 
very  deed  and  truth  what  He  explicitly 
says  He  is,  the  Son  of  God  incarnate, 
the  Word  made  flesh.  The  heart  of  the 
question   centers   here. 

Now,  what  is  it?  Let  it  speak  for 
itself:  "Ye  shall  receive  power  after  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you."  We 
know  where  to  go  when  we  need  power; 
we  know  where  to  go  and  get  power. 
We  do  not  get  spiritual  power  apart 
from  the  Word.  Have  you  ever  got 
any?  Do  you  know  anybody  who  has? 
We  do  not  get  spiritual  power  apart 
from  the  Word.  Such  a  sublime  and 
simple  truth  as  this  leads  us  out  of  the 
region  of  false  mysticism  and  of  laying 


undue  stress  on  the  subjective.  We 
have  been  talking  about  the  Radical 
Higher  Criticism  over-emphasizing  the 
subjective;  and  not  only  over-emphasizing 
the  subjective,  but  as  saying  there  is  no 
objective  truth.  Mr.  Chairman,,  we  are 
ourselves  to  blame  for  this  over-empha- 
sizing of  the  subjective  which  the  crit- 
ics have  carried  to  its  logical  issue.  We 
have  failed  to  note  what  the  Scripture 
does  claim  on  the  objective  side:  "The 
words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are 
spirit  and  they  are  life";  "Quick  and 
powerful,  sharper  than  any  two-edged 
sword";  "Which  effectually  worketh," — 
worketh  (that  is  the  emphatic  Word) 
"Which   effectually  worketh." 

Now,  that  is  one  thing  we  have  for- 
gotten. In  our  experience  meetings  we 
make  subjective  the  whole  matter.  In 
our  revivalism  we  fail  to  place  the  proper 
stress  upon  that  which  is  objective.  So, 
in  our  own  private  devotions,  all  the 
spiritual  light  and  life,  and  joy  and 
peace  and  strength  we  have,  we  have 
gotten  from  the  Holy  .Ghost  through 
the   Word.     There   is   no   other   source. 

Then,  power  is  not  evolution;  spirit- 
ual power  is  never  an  evolution,  it  can 
not  be.  Spiritual  power  is  always  and 
in  every  case  a  gift. 

Is  it  not  simple?  "Ye  shall  receive 
power"!  And  who  is  there  that  can  not 
do  that?  It  does  not  take  any  genius 
to  receive  a  thing.  "Ye  shall  receive 
power"!  And  if  you  have  power,  you 
have  it  because  you  received  it.  You 
do  not  evolve  it;  you  do  not  generate  it. 

Why,  is  there  a  man  that  says  it  is 
scientific  to  talk  of  spontaneous  gener- 
ation? Is  there  a  spontaneous  gener- 
ation of  life?  The  Rationalistic  Crit- 
icism is  based  upon  that  acknowledged 
absurdity  of  spontaneous  generation. 
Now,  it  is  false  science.  Life  is  from 
God;  science  can  not  analyze  it;  science 
can  not  create  it.  God  alone  is  the  Author 
of  life;  and  this  Book  is  the  "Book  of 
Life,"  because  it  is  the  Book  of  God. 
Suppose  we  realized  that  in  our  work  as 
teachers  in  the  Sunday  school;  suppose 
we  realized  it  as  we  stood  before  our 
classes;  suppose  they  realized  it,  as  they 
take    it   in    their   hands,    that    they    are 


holding  the  Book  of  Power,  the  Book  of 
Life!  Why,  I  feel  sometimes  that  I  wish 
it  might  make  some  appeal  to  physical 
sensation;  that  there  might  be  some 
thrill,  as  if  from  an  electric  battery  to 
make  us  realize:  "Here  is  a  Book  that  is 
absolutely  unique!  Here  is  the  Book  of 
Power!" 

It  is  true  that  in  things  spiritual  there 
is  never  an  appeal  to  flesh  and  blood,  but 
true  also,  true  without  exception,  that 
power  is  always  communicated  in  a  def- 
inite way.  Is  it  not  glorious  to  think 
of  that?  Because  you  know  where  to 
go.  Suppose  it  were  not  so;  suppose 
the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  conveyed 
at  hap-hazard;  suppose  they  were  acci- 
dental; suppose  you  could  not  tell  where 
they  came  from;  suppose  you  could  not 
tell  whether  they  came  at  all;  suppose 
you  could  not  know.  You  do  know; 
you  know  there  is  only  one  source  of 
power;  and  that  is  the  Holy  Ghost.  You 
do  know  that  this  Word  is  inspired  by 
Him,  and  inspired  for  the  purpose  of 
conveying  power! 

Suppose  we  take  that  truth  into  our 
classes;  suppose  the  purpose  of  teaching 
it  be  to  receive  power  through  it.  There 
is  not  one  here  who  has  the  least  hesi- 
tancy in  fully  agreeing  that  science,  so 
long  as  this  earth  shall  last,  science  will 
never  generate  life.  That  is  a  thing  Di- 
vine, out  of  the  province  of  science,  and 
therefore  if  this  Book  is  the  Book  of 
Life,  then  to  cut  it  to  pieces  is  vivisec- 
tion. 

Now,  to  apply  this  truth  to  our  young 
people,  and  then  we  stop.  If  we  can 
make  them  realize  that  the  Word  is  the 
source  of  power — do  you  think  they  do 
not  all  want  power?  Do  you  know  a 
young  man  in  all  your  acquaintance  that 
does  not  want  power?  Do  you  know 
any  man  that  does  not;  of  whom  that  is 
not  the  strong  cry?  Oh,  if  he  could  only 
have  power  to  do  what  he  wants  to  do! 
How  can  he  evolve  out  of  himself  what 
is  not  in  himself?  He  receives  it;  he 
receives  by  definite  means  of  grace.  That 
makes  it  so  plain  to  him. 

Here  is  the  last  sentence.  We  are 
holding  in  our  very  hands  "the  instru- 
ment" (I  hardly  dare  say  it;  it  takes  m^ 


104 


breath  I)  We  are  holding  in  our  very 
hands  the  instrument  of  God's  creative 
power!  Let  us  reverence  it!  Let  us  be 
glad  of  it!  Let  us  have  a  definite  pur- 
pose always  in  using  it!     Let  it  be  the 


prayer  of  each  one,  that  He  who  in- 
spired this  Word  shall  quicken  us  by  it! 
Let  it  be  our  prayer  that  he  will  uplift 
us  by  it,  energize  us  by  it,  sanctify  us 
by  it,  for  His  name's  sake! 


President  Hall:  We  have  heard  from 
a  representative  of  one  of  the  greatest 
Young  People's  Societies  in  the  world, 
and  we  have  been  delighted  with  the 
message.  I  am  sure  that  it  has  come 
with  no  uncertain   sound. 

We  shall  now  hear  from  a  gentleman 
who  represents  another  great  Christian 
society  in  this  fair  land  of  ours,  The 
Young     Men's      Christian     Association, 


one  of  the  greatest  agencies  for  the 
practical  exemplification  of  the  spirit, 
life  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ  that  the 
world  under  God  has  ever  produced.  It 
gives  me  great  pleasure  to  introduce 
our  friend,  Mr.  Willis  E.  Lougce,  Secre- 
tary of  the  Business  Department  of  the 
International  Committee  of  the  Young 
Men's  Christian  Association.  Mr.  Lou- 
gee  will  now  address  you. 


ADDRESS   BY   MR.   WILLIS    E.    LOUGEE 
"Bible  Study  and  the  Y.  M.  C.  A." 


It  was  a  surprise  that  I  should  be 
placed  upon  the  program  in  a  conven- 
tion like  this.  I  have  been  wondering 
what  I  could  bring  as  a  layman  to  sup- 
plement what  has  been  said.  And  yet, 
perhaps  I  might  represent  very  feebly 
that  greater  constituency  of  our  Chris- 
tian workers — the  laity.  We  do  not 
thoroughly  understand  the  theological 
terms  and  expressions  which  have  been 
used  here,  but  we  do  understand  that 
this  Book  which  we  love  and  revere 
above  everything  else  is  God's  own 
Word  and  God's  own  weapon  for  us  to 
use. 

After  spending  nearly  twenty-five 
years  in  special  work  for  the  young,  and 
at  the  same  time  attending  to  my  duties 
as  a  superintendent,  teacher  and  church 
officer,  I  bring  to  you  as  a  layman,  not 
a  pessimistic  view,  but  I  come  rather 
with  a  feeling  of  optimism.  Yet,  at  the 
same  time,  I  do  recognize  as  a  layman 
the  dangerous  tendencies  so  prevalent  in 
our  schools  in  relation  to  the  destruc- 
tive criticism.  There  seems  to  be  an 
effort  to  take  away  from  us  laymen  that 
Book  which  has  been  such  a  source  of 
blessing  and  inspiration  to  us,  to  take 
away  from  us  our  Bible,  the  Bible  that 
speaks  to  us  as  the  voice  of  God,  speaks 
directly  to  our  hearts  and  consciences. 
If  I  read  the  signs  of  the  times  aright, 
this  is  the  tendency. 


There  was  a  time  when  a  certain 
Church  continually  robbed,  as  it  is  at 
present  robbing,  the  plain  people  of  this 
Word  of  God,  and  saying  to  them,  "You 
must  not  interpret  this  Book  or  its  doc- 
trines, except  as  we  tell  you  the  inter- 
pretations thereof.  You  must  not  study 
this  Bible  for  yourself;  we  will  tell  you 
its  teaching;  we  will  tell  you  what  it 
means  to  you.  You  must  receive  the 
message  of  God  through  us;  not  directly 
from  His  Word." 

There  are  other  Churches  which  for 
centuries  have  given  the  Bible  to  the 
plain  people  as  the  authoritative  Word 
of  God;  but  a  certain  class  of  scholars 
have  arisen  who  by  their  criticism  of  this 
Book,  by  putting  it  upon  the  plane  of 
all  other  literature,  are  shaking  the  con- 
fidence of  the  plain  people  in  it  as  the 
inspired  Word  of  God. 

But  there  are  higher  critics  and  higher 
critics;  and  we  of  the  common  people 
understand  that  among  these  critics  are 
those  who  devoutly  accept  this  Book  as 
the  Word  of  God,  and  as  the  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.  Now,  as  I  un- 
derstand our  organization  it  is  a  band- 
ing together  of  those  who  believe  in  the 
Bible,  including  many  of  the  devout 
critics,  for  the  purpose  of  preserving 
that  Divine  Word  which  has  been  the 
hope,  confidence  and  help  of  our  Chris- 
tian ancestors  as  well  as  ourselves.    It  ia 


105 


designed  to  help  us  give  a  reason  io:  our 
faith.  What  we  laymen  need  is  not  the- 
ory, but  such  practical  help  in  our  daily 
studies  of  the  Bible  as  to  lead  us  to  ac- 
cept Christ  as  the  Divine  Lord  and  Re- 
deemer, the  very  Son  of  God,  and  to 
help  us  to  commend  Him  to  others  as 
their   Savior  and   Lord. 

The  Young  Men's  Christian  Associ- 
ation is  one  of  the  best  agencies  for  pre- 
senting Christ  to  men  as  the  very  Son 
of  God.  Through  the  teaching  of  the 
Word  God's  will  is  revealed,  and  men 
are  shown  what  should  be  their  attitude 
toward  God.  There  never  has  been  a 
time  in  the  history  of  the  Church  when 
young  men  have  shown  such  a  deep  in- 
terest as  now  in  the  study  of  the  Word 
of  God.  This  interest  has  reached  the 
industrial  classes.  Among  the  railway 
employees  who  are  members  of  the 
Young  Men's  Christian  Association, 
there  has  never  been  a  time  when  in- 
terest in  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God 
was  as  keen  as  it  is  to-day.  Railway 
men  and  other  working  men  in  this 
country  are  turning  to  it  and  finding 
in  it  those  principles  that  will  make  their 
lives  better  and  stronger.  In  one  of  our 
Christian  Associations  in  one  of  the  cit- 
ies of  this  country  nearly  300  young  men 
were  banded  together  in  systematic 
Bible  study.  One  year  ago  the  number 
had  increased  to  over  900,  and  this  year 
it  is  over  2,000.  Besides  these  about 
1,000  men  in  the  shops  and  manufac- 
tories of  that  city  spend  twenty  minutes 
at  the  noon  hour  in  studying  the  Word 
of  God  and  praying.  Altogether  over 
3,000  men  in  that  one  city  are  carefully 
and  systematically  studying  the  Bible. 

This  League  has  a  great  work  before 
it  among  the  plain  people.  It  can  prove 
to  them  that  their  confidence  in  the  Bible 
as  the  Word  of  God  is  not  misplaced. 
It  can  furnish  them  with  safe  helps  for 
the  study  of  the  Divine  Word. 

In  our  Associations  we  have  nearly 
40,000  working-men,  plain,  common  lay- 
men, who  are  studying  the  Word  of  God. 
But  study  of  the  Word  is  not  confined 
to  the  common  people  to-day;  there 
never  has  been  a  time  in  the  history  of 
the  Church  when  the  young  men  of  our 


colleges  and  other  educational  institu- 
tions have  had  the  interest  in  the  Bible 
that  they  have  at  the  present  time. 
Seven  years  ago  there  were  only  2,000 
young  men  in  our  Associations  engaged 
in  systematic  Bible  study.  They  got 
their  spirit  from  Northfield,  from  that 
man  who  valued  this  Word  as  no  other 
man  ever  had  seemed  to  value  it.  The 
influence  in  favor  of  Bible  study  that 
has  gone  out  from  Northfield  is  incalcu- 
lable. 

Not  only  does  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  join 
hands  with  this  Bible  League,  but  North- 
field  and  the  Moody  institutions  every- 
where are  with  us  in  purpose  and  effort. 

Last  year  nearly  15,000  students  made 
a  systematic  study  of  the  Bible.  In  1904 
there  are  over  25,000  who  stand  for 
that  Book  as  D.  L.  Moody  stood  for  it. 
Think  of  it!  Thirty-five  thousand  labor- 
ing men  and  25,000  students — 60,000  men 
studying  this  Word  of  God!  Does  not 
this  give  us  a  Pentecostal  outlook? 

Will  you  pardon  a  personal  allusion? 
As  a  boy  I  had  no  religious  training,  but 
I  often  noticed  my  grandmother  reading 
that  old  leather-covered  Book.  I  would 
see  her  push  the  glasses  back  upon  her 
head  and  look  across  the  hills  with  a 
look  that  made  me,  a  wild  reckless  boy, 
want  to  go  on  tiptoe  as  I  looked  at  her 
face.  And  I  looked  at  that  Book  as  a  boy 
and  wondered  what  there  was  in  it  that 
brought  that  look  into  my  grandmother's 
face.  I  went  down  into  Massachusetts, 
and  there  I  found  Jesus  Christ.  I  went 
back  home  to  my  old  grandmothf^r,  95 
years  of  age,  and  told  her  about  it.  I 
told  her  I  had  found  in  Christ  and  the 
Bible  the  secret  of  that  peculiar  look  in 
her  face.  I  had  the  pleasure  of  going 
into  the  little  home  schoolhouse  and 
telling  about  this  Bible,  and  I  had  my 
grandmother  there,  95  years  old.  Now, 
this  may  be  sentiment  to  you,  but  it  is 
real  enough  to  me.  I  would  give  more 
to  hear  the  testimony  which  my  grand- 
mother gave  at  that  time  than  all  the  ut- 
terances of  the  higher  critics  that  the 
world  could  bring  together.  Brethren, 
sentiment  moves  the  world.  This  Bible 
sentiment  is  worth  preserving.  The 
League  would  do  well  to  promote  such  a 


106 


Bible    sentiment   as   that    which   touched 
the  lives  of  Luther,  LesHc,  Finney,  Mur- 


ray, Livingston  and  Moody,  who  in  turn 
touched  and  moved  tlie  world! 


President  Hall:  The  gentleman  whom 
we  have  just  had  the  pleasure  of  listen- 
ing to,  not  only  represents  the  Interna- 
tional Committee  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A ,  but 
is  the  former  President  of  the  Presby- 
terian Union  of  New  York  City,  and  in 
that  capacity  has  had  opportunity  to 
learn  the  minds  of  many  of  our  leading 
laymen  in  this  great  Metropolis  on  this 
burning  question. 

In  concluding  the  program  of  the 
morning,  we  will  again  hear  from  Phil- 
adelphia. I  want  to  say  that  Dr.  Hoyt 
expected  to  be  here,  but  has  been  unable 
to  be   present,   to  represent   the   United 


take  not,  we  have  had  the  Society  repre- 
sented in  the  person  of  our  brother.  Rev. 
Dr.  Burrell.  The  Chairman  is  also  one  of 
the  trustees  of  the  World's  Christian  En- 
deavor Union.  I  want  to  say  that  I  be- 
lieve the  great  Christian  Endeavor  move- 
ment in  the  main  stands  for  the  dear  old 
Book  as  we  understand  it  and  as  we  be- 
lieve it. 

It  now  gives  me  very  great  pleasure  to 
introduce  the  Rev.  James  A.  Worden, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  Philadelphia,  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Sabbath  School  and  Mis- 
sionary Work  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America 


Society  of  Christian  Endeavor.   If  I  mis 

ADDRESS   BY  REV.   DR.  WORDEN 
"The  American  Bible   League  and  the    Sabbath  School" 


In  the  very  few  minutes  which  are 
mine  I  shall  endeavor  to  speak,  first,  of 
what  this  League  can  do  for  Sabbath 
Schools,  and,  secondly,  of  what  the  Sab- 
bath Schools  can  do  for  this  League. 

Mr.  President,  we,  the  people  in  Phila- 
delphia, have  been  deeply  impressed  al- 
ready by  this  Convention.  We  regard  it 
as  one  of  the  most  important  that  has 
ever  been  held.  The  brother  that  has 
taken  his  seat,  representing  the  Young 
Men's  Christian  Association,  spoke  in 
eloquent  and  impressive  terms.  I  may 
be  regarded  as  representing,  in  a  sense, 
the  Bible  students  of  this  country.  And 
I,  too,  may  speak  in  optimistic  terms. 
Let  me  tell  you  there  are  1,200,000  Bible 
teachers  in  this  country,  and  among  them 
the  best  equipped,  intelligent,  practical 
Christians.  They  have  read  all  that  has 
been  said  against  the  Bible,  and  they  are 
interested  in  it.  There  has  been,  as  you 
are  perhaps  aware,  a  systematic  and  per- 
sistent endeavor  to  bring  the  principles 
and  methods  of  the  destructive  criticism 
into  the  ranks  of  the  Sabbath  schools.  I 
myself  know — for  I  have  been,  as  some 
of  you  are  aware,  in  the  heart  of  this 
work  in  our  Church,  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  for  twenty-six  years — that  for 
over  twenty  years  our  brethren  holding 
different  views  from  ours  have  steadily 


and  systematically  endeavored  to  get  the 
car  of  the  Sabbath  school  teachers  of  the 
country  and  bring  them  into  their  sys- 
tems of  study  and  under  their  influence. 
They  have  failed.  Those  to  whom  they 
have  appealed  are  readers;  they  are  stu- 
dents; they  are  diligent  studiers  of  the 
Word  of  God  and  of  all  that  has  been 
said  for  and  against  it. 

Why,  then,  do  they  stand  so  steadfast? 
We  have  been  told  here  in  the  last  two 
speeches  that  this  Word  is  spirit  and  this 
Word  is  life.  There  is  a  correspondence 
between  this  Bible  and  the  soul  of  the 
Christian;  there  is  a  self-convincing 
power  in  the  Scriptures  that  only  calls 
for  a  candid,  impartial,  prayerful  and 
practical  study,  that  it  may  demonstrate 
that  they  are  the  Word  of  God.  The 
Bible  is  its  own  best  defender.  This  is 
one  way  to  state  it.  Another  way  to 
state  it  is,  that  the  ground  of  faith  in 
the  Scriptures,  after  all— and  no  one  can 
speak  in  more  appreciative  words  than  I 
can  of  external  proofs  derived  from  the 
miracles,  and  from  prophecy,  and  from 
the  character  of  Christ,  and  from  the  ef- 
fects of  Christianity,  and  drawn  from  all 
such  discoveries  in  the  line  of  scholarship 
and  from  archaeology,  such  as  have  been 
mentioned  here;  but,  after  all,  that  is  not 
the  reason  we  believe  in  the  Bible;  it  is 


107 


not  the  reason  you  and  I  believe  the 
Bible. 

Why  do  you  and  I  believe  the  Bible? 
Brethren,  it  is  because  the  same  Holy 
Spirit  that  inspired  this  Word  dwells  in 
our  hearts,  illuminates  that  Word,  which 
is  a  mirror  in  which  that  blessed  Spirit 
reveals  to  us  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face 
of  Jesus  Christ.  It  opens  our  eyes  to  see 
that  glory,  and  not  only  do  we  perceive 
but  we  see;  we  are  not  convinced  simply, 
we  have  direct  knowledge  and  apprehen- 
sion of  Jesus  Christ  as  He  is  in  the 
Word, — and  that  Word  is  to  us  Truth. 
Therefore,  it  is  that  1,200,000  teachers  in 
this  country  are  studying  that  Word. 

Let  me  give  you  a  piece  of  advice.  I 
want  to  say  that  in  my  judgment,  it  will 
be  making  the  greatest  mistake  that  this 
League  could  make,  ever  to  speak  a  dis- 
paraging word  concerning  the  work  of 
the  Bible  teachers  and  students  in  our 
Sabbath  schools.  They  are  firm  believers 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Word,  de.=pite 
all  that  has  been  written,  despite  all  that 
has  been  said,  for  the  last  twenty-five 
years.  They  stand  by  your  side,  Mr. 
President,  1,200,000  strong,  convinced,  by 
the  self-convincing  power  of  the  Bible 
and  by  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
their  hearts,  that  this  is  a  supernatural, 
divine  revelation,  and  that  it  is  infallibly 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments. 

What  can  you  do  for  them?  Carry  out 
the  program  that  has  been  outlined 
for  us  by  Dr.  Gregory.  You  do  not  have 
to  convince  us  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God  and  our  only  Savior.  You 
do  not  have  to  convince  us  that  this 
Bible  is  inspired.  But  we  do  have  our 
difficulties.  These  poor  people  have  their 
troubles;  these  humble  teachers  hear  this 
criticism  made  upon  the  Pentateuch  and 
upon  the  history  in  the  Bible  and  upon 
Isaiah,  and  they  do  not  know  how  to 
answer  it. 

Now,  we  want  your  Primers;  we  want 
you  to  circulate  them.  We  want  yo\i, 
Mr.  President,  to  incorporate  into  your 
League  tens  of  thousands  of  our  Sab- 
bath school  workers.  This  League  and 
its  objects  are  not  yet  known  to  our  Sab- 
bath, school  workers.     Just  as   soon  as 


they  know  that  a  League  has  been  or- 
ganized for  the  advancement  of  the 
Word  against  the  criticism  that  widely 
prevails,  they  will  rally  around  you.  Get 
the  names  of  the  hundred  thousand  su- 
perintendents of  our  Sabbath  schools. 
Send  to  them  your  plans.  Tell  them  that 
you  mean  to  resist  the  assaults  made 
upon  the  Scriptures,  with  which  they 
have  some  little  trouble;  and  you  will 
find  they  will  respond.  This  is  just  what 
we  want.  We  have  no  trouble  in  our 
own  souls;  yet  these  criticisms  do  cause 
us  some  intellectual  difficulties,  and  your 
answers  will  be  very  welcome.  Let  us 
have  these  answers. 

Of  course  there  has  not  been  a  single 
allegation  made  by  these  destructive 
critics  that  has  not  been  answered  a  hun- 
dred times.  They  are  well-known  to  you 
and  to  me.  They  are  well-known  in  the 
circles  of  theologically  trained  men.  We 
have  no  doubts  about  them;  but  the  an- 
swers have  never  been  circulated;  they 
have  never  been  published  or  printed  in 
elementary  form  so  that  our  Sabbath 
school  teachers  and  superintendents 
could  have  them  in  form  easily  under- 
stood so  as  to  satisfy  their  minds. 

My  message  to  you,  brethren,  is  one  of 
gratitude  to  the  League,  and  one  of 
gratitude  to  you,  Mr.  President,  and  to 
the  Secretary,  and  to  the  honored  and 
beloved  Pastor  that  has  hospitably 
opened  this  church  to  us  and  to  this  Con- 
vention. We  feel  that  you  have  met  a 
felt  want  in  the  Sabbath  school  v/orld. 
We  feel  that  you  are  going  to  strengthen 
the  hearts  and  encourage  1,200,000  Bible 
teachers  and  12,000,000  of  Bible  students 
— that  is  what  the  Sabbath  school  is  for, 
to  study  the  Word;  and  you  come  in  and 
define  that  Word.  And  I  want  to  speak 
in  highest  terms  of  that  portion  of  Dr. 
Gregory's  remarks,  in  his  admirable  ad- 
dress, in  which  he  wants  us  to  study  the 
Word.  There  is  not  enough  of  study  in 
our  Sabbath  schools,  there  is  not  enough 
of  personal,  individual  investigation  of 
the  Scriptures  on  the  part  of  teachers 
and  of  scholars  with  the  help  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  That  is  true;  and  we  need 
such  an  organization  as  this.  We  need 
such    a    stimulus.      We    need    such    a 


108 


National  League  as  has  been  formed 
here  to  lead  the  Sabbath  school 
workers  to  do  more  thorough  work.  Do 
not  disparage  what  they  have  done. 
They  have  done  their  best,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent. There  are  500,000  of  them  that  are 
capable  and  effective  teachers.  Who  has 
trained  them?  Not  the  church,  not  any 
man.  God  Himself  has  trained  these  500,- 
000  laymen  and  lay-women — and  the  ma- 
jority of  them,  two-thirds,  are  women, 
and  the  best  two-thirds  of  them.  They 
have  trained  themselves,  and  it  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at  that  they  have  not  done 
better  work  than  they  have.  But,  come 
and  help  us.  Come  and  answer  for  us  in 
a  practical,  intelligent  and  brief  form 
these  so-called  destructive  criticisms  of 
our  friends. 

Why  should  not  these  Sabbath  school 
teachers  be  brought  by  tens  of  thou- 
sands into  this  League?  I  do  not  under- 
stand why  they  should  not;  and  I  believe 
it  should  be  done. 

Mr.  President,  I  brought  up  here  this 
morning  our  leading  paper  of  Philadel- 


phia— it  has  every  day  a  letter  from  New 
York  City,  the  great  Metropolis,  and 
each  morning  we  get  what  is  the  pre- 
valent theme.  And  this  morning  what 
do  you  suppose  it  is?  This  is  simply  as 
a  newspaper:  "Theology  Claims  Invent- 
or's Leisure.  William  Phillips  Hall  Per- 
fects Appliance  to  Secure  Safety  on  Rail- 
ways, and  Preaches  with  Power  as  a 
Layman.  American  Bible  League's 
President."  It  is  an  admirable  article. 
I  stand  here,  as  I  said  before,  coming 
from  Philadelphia  at  this  late  hour  of  this 
Convention,  praying  for  God's  blessing 
to  rest  upon  this  League  and  praying  for 
that  blessed  Spirit,  of  Whom  we  have 
heard  in  the  last  two  addresses,  that  He 
will  use  this  Conference,  not  only  for 
us  who  have  the  great  privilege  and 
pleasure  of  attending,  but  also,  through 
these  newspapers  that  are  sending  forth 
all  over  our  country  accounts  of  the  ad- 
dresses that  have  here  been  made,  for 
multitudes  all  over  the  land  who  would 
have  been  glad  to  be  here  but  have  not 
been  able  to  come. 


Closing  JBxcrc\scs  of  the  Convention 


Dr.  J.  L.  Clark:  Mr.  President,  be- 
fore the  meeting  is  dismissed,  I  would 
move  that  we  tender  a  hearty  vote  of 
thanks  to  Dr.  Burrell  and  the  officers 
of  the  Marble  Collegiate  Church  for 
opening  its  doors  to  the  First  Conven- 
tion of  The  American  Bible  League,  and 
for  the  many  courtesies  extended  during 
the  various  sessions;  also  that  we  ex- 
press our  thanks  to  the  sexton  and  his 
assistant  for  their  valuable  services. 
(Seconded.) 

President  Hall:  All  those  in  favor  will 
respond  by  saying  aye.     (Carried.) 

The  Chairman,  on  behalf  of  the  Bible 
League  and  all  the  friends  of  the  Word 
of  God  throughout  the  country,  wishes 
to  acknowledge  with  grateful  thanks  the 
excellent  services  of  the  representatives 
of  the  Press,  who  have  correctly  and 
kindly  recorded  the  proceedings  of  this 
Convention.    I  think  that  it  is  due  them 


that  they  should  have  a  vote  of  thanks. 
(Seconded  and  carried.) 

Dr.  Gregory:  I  move  that  we  extend 
thanks  to  the  brethren,  who  have  come, 
at  great  trouble  and  expense  and  in 
some  cases  from  a  great  distance,  to  ad- 
dress us  at  these  meetings.     (Seconded.) 

President  Hall:  All  who  are  in  favor 
of  the  motion  will  respond  by  saying 
aye;  contrary  minds  no;  it  is  a  vote. 

It  may  not  be  known  to  those  present 
that  the  services  of  nearly  all  the  speak- 
ers have  been  contributed  without  money 
and  without  price.  Many  of  the  most 
eminent  scholars  that  have  attended  this 
convention,  have  even  paid  their  own  car 
fare  from  distant  points,  in  order  that 
they  might  come  to  this  platform  and 
plead  for  the  dear  old  Book. 

And  now,  before  the  closing  hymn  is 
sung,  pardon  me  if  I  make  a  personal 


109 


statement  —  I  know  you  will  be  inter- 
ested to  hear  it.  Our  friend,  Mr.  Lou- 
gee,  referred  to  the  late  Dwight  L. 
Moody,  than  whom  there  was  no  man 
in  this  country  who  more  thoroughly 
appreciated  this  blessed  Book  of  God. 
He  did  not  attempt  to  meet  the  attacks 
of  the  Higher  Criticism  in  a  scholastic 
way,  because  he  knew  he  was  not  able 
to  do  that;  but  he  appreciated  the  fact 
that  there  were  scholars  in  our  Chris- 
tian educational  institutions  who  were 
just  as  good  in  point  of  scholarship  and 
of  ability,  who  were  able  to  meet  the 
leading  scholars  of  the  opposite  school. 
He  believed,  as  I  know  from  his  per- 
sonal assurance,  that  the  day  was  com- 
ing when  such  Conventions  as  this 
would  be  called  to  meet  the  issue. 
Through  The  American  Bible  League 
this  is  now  being  done,  and  for  that  we 
thank  and  praise  God. 

Permit  me  to  say  another  personal 
word,  this  time  about  Mr.  Moody's  son, 
William  R.  Moody.  He  is  heartily  in 
sympathy  with  us  in  this  work,  and  has 
enlisted  as  a  member  of  the  League. 
The  word  I  have  concerning  him  is  in 
"The  Record  of  Christian  Work,"  the 
organ  of  the  Northfield  work  that  he  is 
carrying  on  as  the  successor  to  his  la- 
mented father. — Let  me  say,  by  the  way, 
that  if  you  are  not  a  subscriber  for  the 
"Record  of  Christian  Work"  you  can 
not  do  better  than  to  take  it. — I  read  in 
that  magazine  last  month  the  statement 
to  which  I  refer.  You  know  that  Dwight 
L.  Moody  was  very  careful  about  invit- 
ing people  into  the  ministry.  His  son, 
in  that  last  issue,  comes  out  and  tells 
of  having  received  a  letter  from  a  New 
England  minister,  stating  that  during 
the  past  few  months  the  Conference  of 
which  he  was  a  member  had  received 
applications  from  six  candidates  for  the 
ministry.  Of  these  six,  not  one  believed 
in  the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  only  one  in  His  physical  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead.  In  commenting 
upon  this,  Mr.  Moody  says — and  his 
strong  statement  filled  my  soul  with  de- 
light—: 

"It  seems  to  us  that  a  theological  sem- 
inary which  is  sending  forth  men   who 


doubt  the  essential  truths  of  Christianity 
may  well  consider  the  advisability  of  re- 
vising thoroughly  its  curriculum  and 
teaching  force,  or  of  permanently  closing 
its  doors." 

And  now  one  word  for  the  publication 
of  my  dear  friend.  Dr.  Cameron,  "The 
Watchword  and  Truth."  If  you  don't 
take  it,  you  had  better  take  it.  You  will 
find  that  he  stands  true  to  the  old  Book 
every  time. 

Now,  just  a  word  about  The  Amer- 
ican Bible  League.  We  want  to  see 
every  one  who  has  been  in  attendance 
upon  this  Convention  a  member  of  this 
League.  We  ask  every  one  here  who 
desires  to  be  practically  interested  in 
pressing  this  glorious  propaganda  for 
the  better  knowledge  of  the  Word  of 
God,  to  join  with  us.  The  annual  mem- 
bership is  one  dollar,  and  that  entitles 
you  to  The  Bible  Student  and  Teacher, 
the  official  organ  of  the  League,  which 
will  contain  a  full  report  of  the  entire 
proceedings  of  the  Convention.  Later 
on  we  hope  to  publish  the  entire  pro- 
ceedings in  book  form,  of  which  due  an- 
nouncement will  be  made. 

And  now  in  conclusion  I  have  only 
this  to  say  further, — that  we  are  de- 
voutly thankful  to  God  for  your  moral 
support,  for  your  continued  attendance, 
and  for  the  beautiful,  loving  Christian 
spirit  that  has  characterized  all  the  pro- 
ceedings. I  do  not  think  it  can  be  said 
that  there  has  been  any  spirit  of  bitter- 
ness or  hatred  in  these  sessions.  We 
love  our  brethren  on  the  other  side  who 
own  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  their  Mas- 
ter, even  though  to  some  of  us  it  may 
seem  that  they  are  groping  in  the  dark- 
ness of  their  own  ignorance  of  things 
spiritual,  things  true,  and  things  Christ- 
like. 

Dr.  Burrell:  Now,  we  will  all  sing 
Hymn  No.  698. 

I  think  President  Hall  made  a  slight 
omission  in  not  saying  that  all  Mem- 
bers of  the  Bible  League  get  what  is 
better  than  the  best  chromo  on  earth, 
a  receipted  bill  for  their  subscription  to 
The  Bible  Student  and  Teacher.  It  is 
intended  to  have  that  magazine  answer 


no 


exactly  Dr.  Worden's  request  for  in- 
struction along  the  lines  he  indicated, 
specifically  in  behalf  of  those  who  are 
engaged  in  teaching  the  young.  If  you 
Sunday  school  teachers  want  to  know 
the  best  thought  along  the  line  of  loyal 
defense  of  the  Scriptures  against  all 
fuming  and  malignant  and  aggressive 
criticism,  you  will  find  it  in  the  schol- 
arly contributions  made  from  this  time 
on  to  The  Bible  Student  and  Teacher. 
And  I  hope  that  the  teachers  of  the 
country  and  the  men  in  the  Young 
Men's  Christian  Association  will  be  ad- 
vised with  as  to  whether  it  meets  the 
purpose  or  not.  That  is  what  is  intended 
by  Dr.  Gregory  and  those  who  are  asso- 
ciated with  him  in  its  publication.  It  is 
intended  to  stand  right  in  the  forefront 
for  the  scholarly  defense  of  the  Scrip- 
tures as  the  veritable  Word  of  God. 

Now,  then,  one  thing  more.  Pardon 
me,  but  this  is  the  only  good  chance  I 
have  had  since  day  before  yesterday. 
Not  a  word  has  been  said,  I  believe, 
about  our  Primers.  Now,  Dr.  Gregory 
is  responsible  for  their  preparation,  and 
he  is  the  best  cheese-press  in  a  literary 
way  that  was  ever  known  on  earth.  He 
is  right  up  against  old  Dr.  Philip 
Schaflf.  He  knows  how  to  get  things 
into  brief  form.  We  are  to  issue  a  num- 
ber of  Primers  in  the  interest  of  coher- 
ent and  comprehensive  Bible  study.  I 
think  they  will  be  very  helpful  for  all, — 
he  is  such  a  splendid  binder  together  of 
good  points. 

I  am  going  to  propose  that  our  next 
meeting  of  the  Executive  Committee,  in 
pursuance  of  some  things  that  have  been 
said  here  to-day — particularly  by  my  be- 
loved friend,  Mr.  Lougce,  and  by  that 
most  able  representative  of  work  for 
Sunday  Schools  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church — I  am  going  to  suggest  that  we 
proceed  at  once  to  print  a  number  of 
Primers  that  shall  represent  the  ad- 
vanced scholarship  of  the  day  in  the 
very  briefest  form,  with  respect  to  the 
defense  of  the  Scriptures  against  all 
malignant  and  destructive  attacks;  and 
that  those  Primers  shall  be  such  as  may 
be  sold  for,  say  ten  or  fifteen  cents 
apiece,  and  put  into  the  hands  of  any- 


body that  wants  to  know  a  little  cate- 
chism in  answer  to  the  destructive  criti- 
cism of  these  days.  I  am  going  to  pro- 
pose that  we  put  out  something  that 
men  can  get  for  next  to  nothing,  so  that 
no  man  will  ever  come  up  and  say  that 
the  people  don't  know  what  is  being 
said  by  the  scholars.  The  scholars  such 
as  we  have  had  in  this  Convention  know 
what  they  are  talking  about  and  believe, 
with  every  drop  of  blood  in  their  bodies, 
in  the  old  Book  as  the  Book  of  God, — a 
Mighty  Fortress.  We  will  sing  it  as 
the  Germans  do;  we  will  sing  No.  698  the 
way  Luther  did,  as  he  stood  at  the  win- 
dow of  the  Castle  and  said,  "Philip, 
come!"  Let  us  sing  it,  the  old  Hynm  of 
The  Reformation,  No.  698,  two  verses: 

(Singing.) 
"Ein  feste  Burg  ist  unser  Gott." 

Dr.  Burrell:  Mr.  Hall  has  had  a  num- 
ber of  letters  put  in  his  hands,  which 
time  forbids  the  reading  of.  One  in  par- 
ticular I  would  like  to  read,  calling  upon 
ministers  (that  means  me,  I  know;  and 
I  will,  too,)  to  preach  the  Bible  more 
and  more  expositorily;  and  there  are 
other  letters  in  the  same  line.  One  let- 
ter that  I  have  here  is  from  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  ladies  in  the  country, 
whose  name  is  on  the  lips  of  all  Chris- 
tian people;  a  lady  of  wide  beneficence, 
who  expresses  her  cordial  sympathy 
with  our  work. 

Now,  about  that  Word,  that  is  what 
we  will  sing  of  in  the  last  verse: 

"That  Word,  above  all  earthly  powers. 
No  thanks  to  them — abideth."    (Singing.) 

Dr.  Burrell:  I  am  going  to  ask  Presi- 
dent Hall  to  offer  the  closing  prayer. 

Prayer  by  President  Hall: 

Almighty  God,  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  author,  through  the  Holy 
Ghost,  of  Thy  Divine  Word,  we  thank 
Thee  for  this  Convention.  We  thank 
Thee  for  these  discourses.  We  thank 
Thee  for  the  Divine  Truth  that  has 
touched  each  and  every  one  of  our 
hearts,  and  for  the  holy  thrill  of  a  Di- 
vine enthusiasm  that  has  filled  our  souls 
as  we  have  listened  to  the  utterances  of 
ripe  scholarship,  consecrated  to  Thy  ser- 
vice.   And  now  we  pray  that  Thy  bless- 


III 


ing  may  be  upon  us  and  upon  all  Thy  of   millions    of    precious    souls,    and    the 

people      throughout      the      length      and  greatest   revival    ever   witnessed    of   the 

breadth  of  this  land,  as  they  shall  study  power    of    God    in    the    hearts    of    men. 

Thy  precious  Word.     Grant  that  as  the  And  this  we  ask  in  the  name  of  our  Lord 

outcome  of  this  meeting  there  may  come  Jesus    Christ,   and   to  the   Glory  of  God 

a  quickened  interest  on  the  part   of  all  the    Father,    the    Son    and    Holy    Spirit. 

Thy  people  in  the  study  of  Thy  Divine  Amen. 
Volume,    and    that    through    that    study 

there    may    come    the    spiritual     birth  Benediction  by  Dr.  Burrell. 


112 


DATE  DUE 

•«s4«[|^^ 

m^ 

1 

CAVLOKO 

